Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at|http: //books .google .com/I

►:

-A

m

I

••

THE

JOURNAL

OP

SAOEED LITEEATURE

Ain>

BIBLICAL RECOBD.

EDITED BY

B. HARRIS COWPER,

BDrrOR OF THB HEW TISTAHEXT VH OBBBK ntOM CODEX A ; A 8YRIAC OBAJfMAB, ETC.

VOL. III. (New Series). *

WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, •

14 HENRIETTA STREET, CO VENT GA.RDEN, LONDON; '20 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.

' 186S.

LONDON : MITCHELL AND SON, PRINTERS, WARDOUR STREET, W.

INDEX

TO

VOLUME III. (NEW SERIES).

Abarbanel quoted, 388.

Abelard quoted, 357^ 358.

Abraham, the interview of, with Mel- chizedek, 268.

AbraTauel (Abarbanel), referred to, 387, note.

Abyssinian Church, ordinary canon of the, 337.

Acts of the Apostles, importance of the history contained in the, 59.

Acts xiu. 20—22, 447.

Africa, Oswell and Livingstone's ex- plorations into, quoted, 287.

Agobard, Archbishop, quoted on in- spiration, 357.

Alabaster, 296.

Aneodota Syriaca, 115, 187, 439.

Antiquities, Josephus's Jewish, 413.

Antonia, the tower of, 325.

Apocalypse, the date of the, 186.

Aquinas, Thomas, quoted, 357.

Anbic, importance of a knowledge of, 66, 73; works issued by the Ame- rican Board in, 77.

Asiatic Society, Boyal, 250.

Assyria, 501.

Athalie et Esther de Sacine, 463.

Augustine, quoted on the Holy Scrip- tures, 356, 357.

B

Babylonian buildings, the decay of, 459. Babylonians, customs of the, 459 ; dress

of, 459 ; musical instruments of, 459 ;

capital punishments of, 459.

Balkan, discoveries in the, 253.

Ballantyne, Dr., and his works, 64.

Banerjea's Dialogues, 64.

Baptist Missionary Society, what it has done for India, 72.

Baris, built by the Maccabees, 325.

Baumgarten quoted, 363.

Beck quoted on inspiration, 864, 365.

Bedacier, Pierre de, the death of, 27.

Benfey referred to, 97.

Bengel quoted, 834.

Benisch, Dr., and the English Bible, 182, 447.

Bennett, Bev. C, referred to, 97.

Betrayal, the, of our Lord, 319.

Bible, the, as the Word of God, 99 ; difficulties of the, 172, 443; Dr. Benisch on the English, 182, 447; allegorical interpretation of the, 258 ; introduction to the Rabbinic, 382; the spirit of the, 456 ; Dictionaries of, 464.

Biblical chronology, 423, 441.

Blessings and cursings, reading of, 176.

Blumenbach quoted, 433.

Bohemia, Ferdinand II., king of, 366.

Bomberg, Daniel, referred to, 383.

Boschetto, excursion to, 47.

Bossuet, memoirs of, 17; his attach- ment to the Scriptures, 18 ; studies of, 18 ; his admiration of the Fathers, 19; his impromptu preaching, 20; his refutation of Ferry's Catechism, 22 ; his zeal for his Church, 22 ; his correspondence with Vincent de Paul, 25 ; his preaching, 30.

Boyle quoted, on Daniel, 457.

Bruce quoted, 285.

v> t-^

^'1 ^ X "^

IV

INDEX TO VOLUME IH. (NEW SEEIES).

Buddhist Scriptures, 78; their lan- guage, 78,86; when reduced to writ- ing, 80 ; committed to memory, 82 ; what materials were used for writing in the era of the, 83.

Burnouf, M., quoted, 86.

Cairo, school in, 74.

Caliztus quoted, 862.

Calvin on inspiration, 359 ; referred to, 425.

Canon, the ordinary, of the Ahyssinian Church, 337.

Canutic MSS., 98.

Catacombs in Malta, 47.

Cave, St. Paul's, 46.

Ceylon, birth-place of the first settlers of, 91.

Chajim, Jacob Ben, Introduction to the Babbinic Bible by, 382.

Chaldaea and Assyria, ^01 .

Chaldsean reli^on, 503.

Chinese historical writings, 94.

Christ, the Lord, the Bicvealer of God, 469 ; history of the doctrine of the person of, 474.

Clu*onicles of the Helvetian Church, extracts from, 366.

Chronology, Biblical, 423, 441 ; a cor- rection of profane, 457 ; an adjust- ment of sacred, 457.

Church, Canon Stanley's lectures on the Jewish, 257 ; discussions on the principles of the, 465.

Churchman^ Literary ^ quoted, 8.

Cicero quoted on the Divine afflatus, 353.

Citt& Vecchia, excursion to, 43.

Clarke referred to, 362.

Codex Sinaiticus, the, 1, 210, 471 ; his- tory of, 2 ; Dr. Tischendorfs account of its discovery, 3 ; peculiarities of, 6 ; monograms found in, 7 ; curious cus- tom in the writing of, 7; peculiar readings of, 9; the Psalms in, 10; the Song of Solomon in, 10; letter from Dr. Tischendorf on, 11, note ; corrections in, 11; contents of, 13; correspondence on, 210 — 234; date of, 448 ; Sinionidcs on, 478.

Colebrooke referred to, 96.

Colenso, Bishop, his objections to the Pentateuch, 208; the Pentateuch defended against the attacks of, 461 ; on the Pentateuch, part iii., 474.

CoDunentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 469; on the Epistles of the New Testament, 475.

Cond^ referred to, 28.

Consummation, the great, 460.

Convent at Venice, 498.

Country, the South, of Scripture, 454.

Comet, Nicholas, referred to, 17.

Cureton, Dr., referred to, 128.

Cursings and blessings, reading the, to the Israelites, 176.

D

Damask, origin of the word, 271. Daniel, inspiration of the Book of, 457. Date of Codex Sinaiticus, 448. Davidson, Dr., his introduction, 185. De Lamet referred to, 26. Delitzsch referred to, 363. Description of an ^thiopic MS. Octa-

teuch, 437. De Wette's Exegetical Handbook, 467. Dictionaries of the Bible, 464. Difficulties, Bible, 172, 443. Dillman, Professor, quoted, 437. Dioceses, Apostolic and Ante-Nicene,

234. Diodati referred to, 425. Diodorus Siculus quoted, 288. Discussions on Church principles, 465. Divine Service, the principles of, 199. Docetism, 259. Doddridge referred to, 362. Domer's Doctrine of the Person of

Christ, 474. Dyck, letter from the Bev. Dr. Van,

75.

E

Earthquakes in Malta, 49.

Egyptian language, a Grammar of, 470.

Eg>'ptology, 245.

Elohim, 261. 264.

Epistles of the New Testament, com- mentary on, 475.

Error, how to be repelled, 63.

Esdras, the earlier chapters of the First Book of, 143, 413.

Esvsays, Miscellaneous, 204.

Ethiopio Language and Literature, 453; Liturgies and Hymns. 337; MS. Octateuch, description of, 437.

Examination of Bishop Colcnso*s diffi- culties, 475.

INDEX TO VOLUME III. (NEW SERIES).

Exegesis of difficult texts, Matt. yiii.

9, Luke viL 8, 107; Matt. vi. 12,

Luke xi. 3, 108 ; Mark ix. 23, 109 ;

Luke iii. 23, 110; vii. 36—60, 110;

Bom. V. 1, 111 ; vi. 20, 112; ix. 21,

113; X. 20, 113; xv. 23, 24, 113;

2 Tim. i. 13, 113 ; ii. 26, 114 ; Matt

iT. 1—11, Luke iv. 1—13, 304 ; Matt.

xxvi. 28, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii.

20, 1 Cor. xi. 25, 311 ; Matt. xxvi.

50, 314; Luke xii. 53, 314; xix. 17,

315 ; Gal. iii. 15—20, 315 ; Heb. vi.

17, 18, 316. Exegetical Handbook, 467. Exodus, the, of Israel, 475 ; Israelitish

population at the, 444.

Ferdinand II., king of Bohemia, re- ferred to, 366. Ferguson, Mr. William, referred to, 85. Ferry, Paul, referred to, 22. Fleury, the Abb6, referred to, 26.

G

Gauflsen referred to, 363.

Gaza, an account of, 365 ; Volney quoted

on, 365. Genesis, the types of, 460. Geiienius, the Grammar of, 65. Ginsburg, Christian D., translation by,

382; his Commentary referred to,

398, note. Gogerley, Rev. B. J., referred to, 97,

98. Goodwin, Thomas, the works of, 461. Gospel, the unpreached, 464. Gotama, spread of the doctrines of, 78 ;

rejects the sacred language of the

Brahmins, 79. Grammar, a Hebrew, 468; of the

Egyptian language, 470. Grandsons, Judah's, 178. Gray, the Rev. W., quoted, 68. Grotius referred to, 362.

H

Haran, the site of, 266.

Hare, the, as a ruminant, 430, 433.

Hazar-Shual, 455.

Hebrew neglected, 65 ; Grammar, 468.

Helvetian Church, chronicles of the, 366.

Hengstenberg referred to, 363.

Hincks, Dr., on the polyphony of the Assyrio-Babylouian cuneiform writ- ing, 46.

History, contributions to modem eccle- siastical, 366.

Hitzig, Dr., on the Psalms, 465.

Hodgson's discovery of the Nepal Scriptures, 96.

Hodgson, Mr., quoted, 98.

Hofmann quoted, 335 ; on inspiration, 363, 364.

Homilies and Communion Discourses, 464.

Hosea, exposition of, 469.

Howe, John, the works of, 460.

Hume referred to, 53.

Hutten, Ulrich Von, 205.

Hyk.sos, dynasty of the, 269.

Hymns, iBthiopic, 337.

Inscriptions, Sinaitio, 453.

Inspiration, Dr. Tholuck on, 353 ; as represented by the Greek Fathers, 354; Agobard quoted on, 357; the Lutheran sj'mbols on, 358; Calvin' quoted on, 359 ; Voetius quoted on, 361 ; Hofmann quoted on, 363, 364 ; Beck quoted on, 364, 365 ; its bear- ing on the Book of Daniel, 457.

Institute, Christian Union, publica- tions read at the, 477.

Interpretation, the allegorical, of the Bible, 258.

Introduction to theRabbiuic Bible, 382.

Isaiah xviii., translation and notes, 273 ; new translation of, 275.

Iscariot, meaning of, 319.

Israel, the exodus of, 475.

Jackal, the, 455.

Jansenius, Cornelius, 82.

Jarchi. See R<ulU.

Jehovah, the antiquity of the name of,

180. Jenkyn on Jude, 469. Jesus, John the Baptist's knowledge

of, previous to His baptism, 434.

VI

INDEX TO VOLUME HI. (NEW SEMES).

Jewish Church, lectures on the history

of the» 205. John the Baptist's knowledge of Jesus,

4S4. John xix. 10, 11, 445. Jones, Sir William, referred to, 95, 96. Joppa, account of, 336. Josephus, his Antiquities quoted, 143,

1^, 145, 152 ; the eleventh book of

the Jevfish Antiquities of, 413. Judah's grandsons, 178. Jude, Jenkyn on, 469. Judson, Dr. A., quoted, 67. Juke's Types of Genesis, 460.

Keith, Dr., referred to, 456.

Kimchi quoted on the Psalms, 356 ;

referred to, 886. Krummacher quoted, 329.

Lamothe referred to, 362.

Land, Dr., his Anecdota Syriaca^ 115.

Language, the, of the Buddhist Scrip- tures, 86; the Magadhi, 87; the Sanskrit, when it died out, 87 ; the Ethiopio, and literature, 453.

Layard, Mr., quoted, 156, note.

Lebanon, the cedars of, 252.

Lectures, Canon Stanle3r's, on the Jewish Church, 258; on Theology, Science, and Revelation, 473.

Le Dieu quoted, 18.

Legge's Lectures, 473.

Lessing quoted, 55.

Life eternal, 206.

Linguistic preparation for missionaries, 62.

Literature, Christian, in Eastern ver- naculars, 62 ; Royal Society of, 240 ; Ethiopic language and, 453.

Liturgies, Ethiopic, 337.

Logic necessary to the missionary in India, 63.

Long, Bev. James, extract of a letter from, 76.

liottner. Dr., referred to, 71, note.

Lowth referred to, 362.

Luke, St., Commentary on the Gospel of. 469; iii. 23, 110; vii. 8, 107; vii. 36—60, 110 ; xi. 3, 108.

Ly84, how the church of, appointed its first spiritual pastor, 368.

M

McCaul, Dr., his examination of Bishop Colenso's difficulties, 475.

Maimonides, account of, 893, note.

Malta, catacombs in, 47; notes of a visit to, 34 ; the Times of, quoted, 50.

Manetho, Dr. Hincks on, 186.

Manu, the laws of, 65.

Marius, anecdote of, 326.

Mark ix. 23, 109 ; ix. 43—50, 449.

Matthew vi. 12, 108.

Mayer, Mr., of Liverpool, account of lus papyri, 240.

Mazarin, Cardinal, referred to, 17.

Metaphysics and the Hindu nation, 63.

Midian, the ancient land of, 254.

Miscellanies, 210, 478.

Missionaries, the importance of lin- guistic preparation for, 62.

Mosaic, etymology of the word, 271.

Moses, the life of, 462.

Muir, Dr. John, quoted, 69.

Mullens, Dr., quoted, 67.

Miiller, Professor Max, quoted, 68.

N

Nachman, also Nachmanides, see Ram- ban.

Names, the proper, of the Old Testa- ment, 208.

Nausea, on the goddess, 181.

Nathan, £. Isaac, referred to, 409, note.

Natures, on the divine and human of our Lord, 307.

Neander quoted, 833.

Negeb, the, or south country of Scrip- ture, 454.

Nitrian manuscripts in British Mu- seum, 115 ; palimpsests, 125.

Notes of a visit to Malta, 34 ; on Mark ix. 43 — 50, 449; on Romans iii. 3—9, 165.

O

Obituary, Dr. Edward Robinson, 140. Octateuch, description of an i£thiopic MS., 437.

Paley referred to, 63.

Pali, the, 78 ; a modem name, 88 ; its signiiication,88; cultivated in Ceylon, 92 ; the number of books of, 93 ; grammar and dictionary of, 97.

INDEX TO VOLUME III. (NETT SEBIE8).

Vll

Paliiupsestfi, Nitrian, 125.

"Pamphlets," remarkfi on the word, 184.

Pap>;ri, 32.

Patrick, Bishop, referred to, 428, note.

Pftul, St., his bay, 34.

Paul, Yinoent de, his oorrespondenoe with Bossuet, 25, 26.

Pentateuch, origin of the Samaritan, 181; its description, 133, 256; ite divisions, 136 ; Gesenius on the vari- ations in, 139, 910^; defence of, 461 ; its relation to the Jewish and Chris- tian dispensation, 461 ; incredibilities

- of Fart ii. of Bishop Colenso's work on the, 464 ; his examination of the, examined, 4^ ; its vindication, 471 ; the Book of Joshua and the, 474 ; view of from a Christian standpoint, 477.

Pertinax, anecdote of, 329.

Pfaff, Matth., referred to, 362.

Philippi referred to, 36.

Population, Israelite, at the Exodus, -til.

Pritchard's Commentary, 475. Presbyter, John, quoted on the origin

of St. Mark's Gospel, 354. Psalm xlix. 3, remarks on, 443. Psalms, the, by Dr. Hitzig, 465; Kimchi

quoted on the, 356. Psalter, first leaves of the, 463. Puranas, the, 65.

B

Racine, Athalie et Esther de, 463.

Kambam, see Maimonides.

Kamban, account of, 395, note,

Bashi, account of, 391, note.

Bask referred to, 96.

Renan, his Les Histariens Critiques de Jetve, 51 ; denies the existence of the supernatural, 51 ; quoted, 52, note ; his views of our Lord's nature and teaching, 54 ; his view of the origin of the supernatural element of the four Gospels, 57 ; quoted, 57, note ; opinion of the date of the Gospels, 58 ; quoted, 59, note.

Besnrrectiou, testimony to the, 59.

Revelation, remarks on a work on, 467.

ReveUtion and Science, reply to a re- view of, 155.

Robinson, Dr. Edward, obituary, 140 ; referred to, 455.

Romans iii. 3 — 9, notes on, 165 ; v. 1,

111 ; vi. 20, 112 ; ix. 21, 113 ; x. 20,

113 ; XV. 23, 24, 113. Boyer, anecdote of, 27. Budelbach referred to, 363. Ruminant, the hare as a, 430, 433. Bymany, Stephen, 370; memorable

events that happened in the time of,

371.

S

Saadia Gaon, accounts of, 401, note, Salmone, visil to^ 35. Samaritan Pentateuch, the, 131. Sanskrit, the importance of, 65, 71. Science elucidative of Scripture, 462. Science, Bevelation and, 155. Schomberg, the Marshal de, Bossuet's

preaching to, 20. School, Miss Whately's, 74 ; books for

India, the preparation of, 72. Scriptures, the Divine Human in the,

462. Scripture, science elucidative of, 462 ;

the south country of, 454. Sermons, short, by George Phillips,

D.D., 470; a sermon by Gilbert

White, 297. Service books of the Holy Eastern

Church, offices from, 208. Shipwreck, St. Paul's, 36. Siegfried, Dr., referred to, 71, and note. Silva, Rev. P. D., referred to, 98. Simonides, and Codex Sinaiticus, 478 ;

letters on, 479—498. Sinaitic inscriptions, 453. Song of Songs, the, 466. Stanley, Canon, quoted, 259, 267. Stier quoted on John v. 70, 320. Succoth, the feast of, 270. Symbols, the Lutheran, on i aspiration,

358. Syriaca Anecdota, 115, 187, 439. Syrians, writing materials of the an- cient, 127.

Tabernacles, the feast of, 270. Tattam's Egyptian Grammar, 470. Tellier, Michael le, 29 ; quoted, 29. Tempter, the, was he visible or in- visible? 30-1. Tennent, Sir J. E., quoted, 95.

VIU

INDEX TO VOLUME III. (NEW SERIES).

Testament, an Introduction to the Old,

207. Texts, exegesis of diflBcult, 107. Tholuck, Dr., on inspiration, 363. Thornton's Life of Moses, 462. Thrupp's Song of Songs, 466. Times, the last, 460. Timothy (2) i. 13, 113 ; ii. 26, 114. Tischendorf, letter from Dr., 11, note, Tossafoth, the, 396, note. Trevelyan, Sir C. E., quoted, 68. Tribes, remains of the ten, 255. Tsetse, note on the, 285. Turenne referred to, 28. Turnour, Mr., referred to, 81. Types, the, of Genesis, 460.

U

»

Universe, the material, 468. Upanishads, the, 65. Ussher refered to, 425.

Vedas, the, 65.

Venice, the convent at, 498.

Vernaculars, some remarks on Eastern,

62. Vibhanga Atuvd, quotation from, 90. Voetius quoted on inspiration, 361. Volney quoted on Gaza, 365. Voyage of St. Paul, 36.

W

Whately, Miss, her school at Cairo, 74.

White, Gilbert, a sermon by, 297.

Williams, Professor Monier, referred to, 66.

Wilson, Professor H. H., quoted, 68.

Word of God, what is meant by the phrase, 99.

Work and the Word, 467.

Worship, the ordinances of spiritual, 476.

AYriting materials of the ancient Sy- rians, 127.

ERRATA.

Page 186, line 4, for Heron de Bordeaux, read Huon de Bordeaux. „ 463, „ 4 from bottom, for Phayne read JPhayre. 465, „ 32, for Srstu for Erater.

n

THE

JOURNAL

OP

SACRED LITERATURE

AND

BIBLICAL RECORD.

No. v.— APRIL, 1863.

THE CODEZ SINAITICaS.*

The Codex Sinaiticus is a great fact. It has fairly emerged from its obscurity of ages^ and the appearance of a new island would scarcely have been regarded with more interest, than its advent before the eyes of the critical world. A new claimant to the presidency in the republic of Biblical MSS. was of course a very possible occurrence, but it was not generally expected. All at once, however, a celebrated letter from Tischendorf to the minister Yon Falkenstein, announced the coming of a candidate for that presidency, and of one whose lights might perhaps easily be determined. Codex A, which tradition ascribed to the time of the Nicene Council, and which for a long time was allowed to stand first, as its very name indicates, had been con- demned to retire before at least one of its rivals, and to strike off a century or more ftom its assumed age. The Codex C, or the Ephrsem rescript, had won a high position — Tischendorf, for example, puts it before the middle of the fifth century — as early if not earlier than Codex A. The Cambridge manuscript. Codex D, or Beza, has raised a good deal of discussion, but never held its ground as a candidate for the seniority. Of the rest we need liot speak, excepting to name the one which had

* Bibliorutn Codex SinaUictu PetropoUtanua. Auspiciis Augustissimis Impe- ratoris Alezandri II., ex tenebris protraxit, in Europam transtulit, ad iavandas atqne iUaBtrandas Saoras Litterae edidit, Constantinns Tisohendorf. Petropoli 1862. [Leipzig, Carl Fr. Fleischer.]

NEW SERIES. VOL. III., NO. V. B

2 The Codex Smaiticus. [AprU,

won its way to the headship— Codex B, or the Vatican MS. This last seemed to be settling down into quiet possession of its honours ; and such is th^ exclusif^ veneration in which it is held, that it has for a long period been almost as diflScult of access as the Orand Lama of Tibet^ or his holiness the Pope. It remains to be seen whether the rival dignity of the Sinaitic Codex, which courts publicity^ will have any effect in relaxing or remov- ing the restrictions of which we speak. This is not all^ it remains to be seen whether by coming into the broad daylight the Vatican Codex may not even yet vindicate its superior claims. It remains to be seen whether the Sinaitic Codex^ Aleph^ or m. may not be compelled to retire into the same rank as its brother Alpha of Alexandria. But whatever may he the ultimate deci- sion of those who are able to investigate and pronounce judg- ment in the matter^ the Codex Sinaiticus is^ we repeat, a fact and not a myth^ and it will always occupy a very high and powerful position among the uncial manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures. The whole history of this Codex is as romantic as can well be imagined. Sixteen or eighteen years ago it seems to have been seen in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, by a Russian Archimandrite^ one Porphyrins. This was in 1846, but as he published his book as much as ten years later, attentioa was not awakened to the svbject. Not long after Porphyrins^ Major Macdonald mentiotus a very ancient MS. which he saw at Sinai, and which was most likely this. But in this matter Dr. TischendGorf was to he first and Ust. In 1844*, he found among some fragments destined for the fire, portions of a venerable uncial Greek Bible. He published these in 1846 as the (Jodex- FridericO'Augustanus,^ and he declared that he had seen much more of the same document. All these fects are of public notoriety, and the wonder is that the MS. eluded the hunters till early in 1859, when Tischendorf was again at Sinai, and in the steward's dormitory stumbled upon this splendid and pre^ cious volume, which was wrapped up in a oloth. A good deal has been made of this cloth, but needieasly so. The Jews cover their most precious rolls with cloths, or maples, as they ajre termed, and some of our readers may recollect specimens of magnificent mantles of this sort, which appeared in the London Exhibition of 1862. The practice of covering books with a cloth is very common in the £a4t ; and probably Martial refers to something of the sort in his tenth book, where he speaks of the purpurea toga of a volume. In any case there is not a country village in our own land, perhaps, where the rustic women and

* It contained portionB of 1 Chronicles and Ezra, the Books of Nehemiah and Esther, and part of Tohtt.

1868.] I%e Code^ Sinaiticui. 8

children do not often carry their Prayer Books wrapped up in a handkerchief. Of coarse the Sinai book had been nef^lected and shamefiiUy osed, but the mere fact that it was found wrapped in doth indicates nothing save that at length it was set some store by. Dr. TiechendorTs own account ot the discovery is to be found not only in various journals here and in Germany^ but specially in his NoHtia edUioms Codids BidUarum Sinaitici ; in his lately published records of eastern travel^ and in the Prolegomena to the magnificent book before ub. We do not mean to tell the whole story over again. Let it suffice to say that, first of all, Tiachendoif got permission to copy the book at Cairo, and that afterwards things were so managed that the original work was handed over to the Bussiaa Emperor, Alexander. The Russian government very readily entered into the schemes of the dis- eovercF, and acceded to the wish of the learned world for a printed edition in the highest style of typographic art. This edition was, however, meant as an imperial present to such as the Emperor might deign to give it as a memorial of the mil- lenium of the foundation of the Russian empire in 1862. A minor edition (of the New Testament) in ordinary type was to oonae ont in favour of the general public somewhat later, and will, we understand, very shortly appear. So far all was well ; expectant critics stood on the tip*toe of joyous anticipation, and every dfi>rt was made by some to procure beforehand additional and niqpiiblished details. Before the appointed time had come for its appearance, a dark insinuation waa made by Constantino Kmouidea^ — a man of real ability, but of dubious reputation in the learned worid, — ^tfaat the Sinaitic Codex was not fifteen centu- ries old, but a new hook. A little later, when the new edition had Iingra«d at the printer's beyond its time, greater definiteness and precision were given to the rumour, and at last, early in Sep- tember, 1862, Mr. Simonidea boldly avowed that the Sinaitic MS. had been written by himself about twenty years ago, or in 1840-41.*' The narrative in the letter referred to was very cir- eamstantial, and, as usual with the writer of it, was fortified by docoments and references. The letter was severely animadverted upon in some oi the papers, as in the Clerical Journal, and its improbabilities exposed. The subject was also discussed else- where. To some minds Mr. Simonides carried conviction, but no adttlar or palaeographer seems to have been led astray. Simonides himself avowed his intention of only answering the defence of Dr. Tischendorf, who on his part treated the affair with ridicule and contempt, as it merited. However, the matter

' (htardiiom of Ssptambmr 3, oopiad in J. A Z., October, 1862, p. 248.

b2

4 The Codex SmaUiaa. [AprO,

was seriously taken up in ibis eoontry^ and discussed in sundrj journals, and elsewhere. Nor is there any knowing how long it might have giHie on but for the manifest preyarieations and mis- statements of Simonides himself. Little by little he altered and added to his original story till it remained no longer the same, except in this, that he wrote the Codex Sinaiticus at Mount Athos. Among other mistakes which he made, he procured a letter to some of the papers, avowedly written by Callinicus Hieramonachos of Alexandria, endorsing and attesting his state- ments. It so happened that at a crowded and most influential meeting of the Boyal Society of Literature, on February 11th, learned gentlemen were enabled to compare an acknowledged letter of Simonides with that of the supposed Callinicus. These letters were found to be written on paper of a peculiar character precisely the same in all respects in both. Not only so; the handwriting was palpably from one and the same pen. The inference will be anticipated: it was that Simonides had ii»- vented the mythical personage Callinicus, and had written the letter bearing his name. This letter he had sent to some con- federate at Alexandria, by whom perhaps he has been supplied with fragments of papyrus for his operations, and by whom it had been returned to England through the post. Here we presume ended the serious discussion of the claims of Mr. Simonides. We will only add a fact or two. Simonides had asserted in a letter to the Guardian^ and in a similar letter to the Literary Churchman^ that he wrote the Sinaitic Codex on 1206 pages in eight months. But at the dose of the meeting in question, he a£5rmed, through his interpreter and to the writer of this paper, that he had nowhere published any such state- ment, but that he had stated twenty months.' This is what we call prevarication, to use the mildest term. If he had written the 1206 pages in the eight months as he said, and we allow him two hundred working days in that time, he must have written six pages daily. Some of the pages have two columns, and others four, but altogether there would be about 4»500 columns of forty-eight lines each. The number of lines would be about 216,000, or more than one thousand lines of uncial writing per day. The total number of letters would be considerably over 8,000,000, reckoning the lines as all of fonrteeen letters each, which is the case with the short lines only of four columns to the page. We may safely say that in reality there must be 4,000,000 of letters— all uncials— for the 200 days, or 20,000 a day. If six hours a day are given for work, we have 8333 for

* See the eztnots at the end of the present nnmber of J. 8, L,

1868.] The Codex SinaUmu, 5

every hoaf^ and about fifty-five fiw every minute. As every letter i« separately formed^ and, except I, requires two^ three, and four movements or strokes of the pen, it will be seen that not less than 120 strokes must have been made every minute. Finally, we have compared the avowed uncials of Simonides with some of the fmc^tnileM in Dr. Tischendorf's edition, and we venture to say very decidedly that the letters are not all formed by the same kind of stroke or movement of the hand. We hope these minutiae will not weary the reader, but it seemed as well to put them on record. There are many other things connected with this question which have interested us apart from the claims of Simonides. Upon one page of the fac-eimiles we find a copy of an inscription by one Dionysius, — no doubt the Dionysius to whom we owe the one of the same name, whom Mr. Sinaonides calls the '^ professional caligrapher'' of Pante- leemon, at Mount Athos. This Dionysius wrote a wretched, crabbed, cursive hand, and was undoubtedly among the living many centuries back. There is another autograph of one Hilarion, and to this we trace the " Deacon Hilarion '' of Si- monides. But Hilarion also has unquestionably been among the blessed for several hundred years. There are also other autographs which we pass over at present. While we are allud- ing to the writing of the Codex we may observe, that not only is the text itself apparently written by different persons (Dr. Tischendorf says four) but it has been corrected and written upon by several others. The correctors belong to ages widely apart, some of them being comparatively recent. The marginal annotations, or inscriptions, also belong to different periods, and among them we find not only Greek uncials and cursives, but Arabic sentences of considerable antiquity. That all these cor- rections and additions, bearing the marks of so many different ages, have been introduced within the last twenty years or so, — rather, were all introduced between 1841 and 1844, — no man who knows anything of palseography will believe. If they are forgeries they wear a very honest face, and surpass in extent and variety aU other recorded forgeries. In the portions of the work recovered by Tischendorf, there are notes of fifteen thousand or more of these things. To fancy that the monks of Mount Athos were in collusive league with those of Mount Sinai to produce the most extraordinary specimen of literary forgery the world ever saw, is to ascribe to them an amount of skill and want of honesty which they have not yet had credit for ; though this is what Simonides does not now blush to insinuate rather than assert. That this extraordinary feat to produce and half destroy such a work was a net spread for a man who was all but

6 The Codes Sinaiiicua. [April,

unknown when it was carried ont^ is snch an idea as no sane man could entertain for a moment. The friends of Simonides had better get out of the matter as soon and as decently as they can. With r^ard to himself we imagine he is past reoovery, and what is more^ can henceforth not expect to be listened to^ even when he speaks the truth. At one time we fell in with the opinion that it was a monomania, a strange hallucination, but after what he has said and written, and after a close and long examination of the work we think so no longer.

Our attention has been turned more especially to the New Testament, the peculiarities of which, both as to its writing and its text, we have tried to ascertain. In addition to the remarks we have already made, we have sundry miscellaneous observa- tions to offer. We notice that some of the letters of the text are of different types. Such are the differences of aspect pre- sented by the Codex, that it becomes highly probable, as Dr. Tischendorf says, that it was not all written by one scribe, but by three or four. These scribes may have been *' professional caligraphers '^ to whom separate portions were assigned in order to secure the completion of the undertaking within a reasonable time. It is well known that the production of large and elabo- rate MSS. was a slow and tedious process, and one which often occupied years. Every letter had to be painted, rather than written, and the minute accuracy required forbids the idea of hasty production. Not only are there such variations as we have named, affecting the formation of particular letters, and the aspect of the whole ; there are noticeable peculiarities in regard to certain letters in particular positions. Every one is aware that towards the end of a line some letters are often much smaller than others ; and it is so here. This is not what we mean. We refer to certain letters of the alphabet, as mu and omega, which vary in a most remarkable manner. Towards the end of a line they not unfrequently belong to quite a different type. For instance the mu, instead of being like our capital M, is frequently made almost exactly as in the Dublin Codex ; and the omega is often made in quite an exceptional manner. Other variations occur, uniformly at or near the end of lines, or in titles and notes, suggesting at first that they must have been originally omitted and subsequently added. The dissimilar por. tions are, however, in many cases so joined on to the text, that after all, it seems likely they must in such cases be firom the hand of the original writer. It will be for expert palaeographers to determine whether the forms to which we allude do not possibly suggest a later date for the Codex than is assigned by Dr. Tischendorf. These exoeptiond forms of letters, we repeat.

1868.] Tke Ooite^ ShutUiam. J

alfio ooeur out of tbe text in inaeriptiotis^ subicriptioiui^ aad additions.

Another speciality which will have to be considered is the eontractions or monograma which are to be found in certain positions^ and so far as we can ascertain, in the same positions ai the variants above named. For these contractions and monogram matic forms. Dr. Tischendorf has found it desirable to cast special types. We have observed eight or ten of these combinations, some of which are certainly very andenty but of others we know nothing.

The next point to which we allude is a remarkable custom concerning the final lei^r of each line. It is unnecessary to remark that the poetic books, being written stichometrically may terminate any line by any letter which ends a word. These letters will most commonly be either a vowel, or a consonant used in grammatical inflections. Exceptions will be chiefly in proper names, as for instance, Jacob, Moab, eic, where b ends a word, but is no Greek termination. All this is clear enough, but how in the case where the termination of a line has no reference to sense ? In a poetical book a line is often cut in two without any regard to the division of words or syllables. In the ordinary prose portions of four columns to a page, the most obvious rule has been to have fourteen letters on an average in a line. Th6re are by no means uniformly fourteen, but if six- teen occur in one line, only twelve in another, and so on. The last letter of a line is not always the last of a word, as in Hebrew, nor the last of a syllable, a^ with us : a monosyllable even may be divided, so that ex for example, may have e at the end of one tine, and /e at the beginning of the next. All this is plain, and might be accounted for by the desire not to exceed the number of letters in a line. It is not all, however. We have found, on examination, that in spite of this seemingly mechanical procedure, a principle of selection was adopted in regard to the final letters. For anything we know, the same principle may prevail in all other similar MSS. We cannot tell, but as far as we have had time and opportunity to examine, we have seldom found it lost sight of. The principle is, that while any vowel may end a line, more than half the consonants are systematically excluded from that position, and only five are generally admitted to occupy it. The bearing of this will be seen when we repeat that divisions of words and syllables are disregarded in this circumstance. So, then, although it would seem that a line may end anyhow, as a rule, it only ends in one of twelve letters. We have fotind, at present, scarcely an excep- tion to this in the New Testament, save that once the scribe in-

8 The Cadew ainaUicua. [April,

advertently ended his Une with delta, but he straightway erased it and carried it on to the head of the next line. The regular ter- minal letters are any of the vowels^ and X^ fi, v, p, <r. We have found a few exceptions^ mostly in reference to tc. There may be other exceptions, but the uniformity with which the principle is carried out will be apparent to any one who takes the trouble to examine. We have looked into Codex A^ and we found several exceptions both in the Old Testament of Baber, and the New Testament of Waide, where k and ^ for example, occasionally end a line. Otherwise the rule seems generally to hold good there also. In the next place we have looked into Barretts fac-simile of the Dublin MS., and although so imperfect, we find similar uniformity with the same casual exceptions. The fac-similes given by Dr. Tischendorf at the end of the Sinaitic Codex, Vol. I., supply no exception ; neither do those in Mr. Scrivener^s Introduction. The Cambridge Codex has a peculiar arrangement. It is, however, not our purpose to pursue this inquiry, our object will be attained if these hints can be followed up and turned to practical account by palseographers.'

In continuing our miscellaneous notes upon the Codex Sinaiticus, we may observe that the errors of the copyist in the portions examined by us are very numerous. Apart from peculiarities of spelling, which are to be found in others, as A and B, and which have been regarded as so many barbarisms in-

« Mr. Simonides mvy profit by them if he likes. A writer, rather friendly to him, wrote u follows in the jAterary Chwrehman, after the meeting of the Royal Society of Literature above referred to : —

*^ Another speaker then rose, who had spent mach time in examining the * Sinaitio' fac-simile, and described in detail the difficulty of the achievement pretended to by M. Simonides. The speaker said that he had discovered in the course of his examination of the document a special peeuKarity in its writing, which regularly repeated itself; and he could not, at that moment, more clearly specify it : but he ataUenged Mr. Simonides to sit dovm and write six columnsjrom a Oreek Testament^ in tM manner and size of this Codex^ and in the Hme stated, with the view of doing over again what he said he had already done ; as it would be easy to detect him, if he departed from this secret peculiarity which an in- spection of the ' Sinaitic' MSS. had elicited. This was somewhat startling^, and many persons were eager to see what would follow. But Mr. Simonides smiply arose and accepted the challenge, and we heard no more of the challenger."

We are sorry to sav that there are mistakes here. The speaker in question did not ** ehaUenge?* Mr. Simonides to write six columns from a Greek Testa- ment, &c., but suggested in view of the peculiarity in question, that Mr. Simonides should write a sufficient number of Unes to show that he was ac- quainted with the rule. Mr. Simonides was understood, not as accepting this present test or eaperimentum erticw, but as repeating what he before avowed in the Guardian^ his readiness, under certain conditions, to write a Codex like the ** Sinaitic," in the same space of time. This being the case, of course no more was heard of the imaj^nary challenger, who, moreover, could have had no ftirther opportunity of being heard in a meeting burning with excitement, and where so many were so eaff<»r to speak. The report in the preceding extract is so far inexact. It may be weU to aad, that soon after, when the sitting had closed, Mr.

1863.] The Chdex Sinaiiicus. 9

dkating a period and a country in which QreA was not cultivated in its claasic purity — the Egypt of the fourth and subsequent centuries, perhaps — ^there are more serioas mistakes. Freqnent blunders of transcription occur, by which the wrong word has been put in. Sometimes there are important omissions of words, as of /M^ and ovk, etc. ; or of whole clauses and sentences which are required to complete the sense. Most of these things have been observed and corrected by subsequent revisers, but not all of them. The number of ascertainable errors is truly remarkable, and cannot fail to strike any one who collates the MS.

The question of really peculiar readings is one of much interest. And here we may say that they are of such a character and extent, that no Mosow edition of the Brothers Zosimas (which Simonides says formed the basis of the text, in his letter of Sept., 1862), nor any other edition, or number of editions, could supply an explanation of them. These various readings include omissions, additions, and transpositions, as well as verbal differences. Some of them are to be found in A, others in B, others in D, others in L, and so on. Many of them are speciali- ties of particular MSS. But besides these, in connexion with which we invite particular attention to A, B, D, L, and the Claromontane, there are numbers which are not to be found in any other known MS. Where, for example, except here do we find in Bev. iii. 14, the reading 17 a/>;^ T179 eKKXtftruui rov Oeov? Is this an error of the scribe, or did he find it in his copy ? The state of the New Testament text generally is such as to forbid the idea of its being related to, or influenced by any printed edition. However it may stand related to some in certain parts it deviates widely, over and over again, from all the texts we know, whether printed or not. In the Gospels it many times agrees with B, D, and L, where they stand alone. We must, therefore, conclude that it can claim an independent position as reasonably as any other uncial MS. Its very errors and eccen- tricities strengthen this claim, whatever conclusion may be drawn from them as to its actual value.

filinoiiides said, in aiiBwer to an inquiry made by the speaker alluded to, as to whether he knew the law referred to, " I know it'^ This he said both in Greek and in English, but he neither there, nor during the proceedinKS, undertook to give the Terj simple proof of stating its character. As the rules in regard to such writings must be very few: in this case, that the average number of letters in a line must be fourteen, and eight and forty lines to a page, but that certain consonants are to be avoided at the end of a line ; Mr. Simonides weald have produced an impression in his own favour, which would have been '^startling,'' and which he must have felt the need of after the exhibition of those letters already referred to. The writer in the Literary Chwrekman is very correct when he says that Simonides did not explain how an expression in one of his MSS. had beeome exchanged for another after it had been objected to by Greek scholars.

10 The Codex Sinaiticui. [Ajkril,

Before speaking of the amasing number of the oorreotioud^ which are best seen in the notices of Dr. Tischendorfi We have another word or two to say aboat the phenomena exhibited by the printed text. The Psalms have rubricated titles. Not oidy 90, the Song of Solomon has a twofold division, a greater and a lesser one. The lai^r divisions are indicated by the capital letters A, B, F, jd. They are these, —

A^ Chap. i. 1 to i. 14. T. Chap. iii. 6 to vi. 8.

B. Chap. i. 15 to iii. 6. J. Chap. vL 4 to viii. 14^

With regard to the minor divisions, they break up the book into numerous fragments^ to each of which an explanatory rubric is prefixed* These inscriptions distribute the dialogue among the interlocutors^ stating who they are, and often adding other details. They are of undoubted Christian origin, and belong to a period when the allegorical interpretation was established. That they are Christian will be seen in a moment from the fol* lowing examples : —

I. 2. The bride.

I. 4. To the damsels the bride tells what concerns the bridegroom, what he has vouchsafed to her.

I. 4. The bride discoursing to the damsels. And they said.

I. 4. The damsels to the bridegroom proclaim the name of the bride : — Uprightness loved thee.'

I. 4. The bride.

I. 7. To the bridegroom, Christ.

I. 10. The bridegroom to the bride.

I. 12. The bride to herself and to the bridegroom.

In this way the book is divided throughout, and we hope to print at an early date the whole of the Song, according to this arrangement, in an English version. Meanwhile, we invite to the subject the attention of critics^ and hope they will be able to say what bearing, if any, these rubrics have upon the question of the date of the Codex.

While speaking of divisions, it is to be noticed that the Grospels have in the margin the Ammonian sections and the Eusebian canons. The text is sometimes supplied with points, but they do not seem to follow any proper rule. There are occasional marks like commas; and one instance is noted where a quo- tation is specified by angular signs in the ma^n. By Dr. Tischendorf the quotation signs are referred to a corrector. Divisions are marked by spaces in or at the end of a line. The titles and colophons of the books are often accompanied by a peculiar floral or foliated ornament. The contracted words are much the same as in the older uncials — as the words for God^ Lord, Christ, Jesus, Man, Son, David. These and a final n, as

1863.] T%e Code0 Si$unHcus. 11

at the end of a line^ are signified as nsual by a line above tfae letters written. At the end of certain books> more especially the Pauline Epistlesy we find the nnraber of versioles or stichie set down. The numerals employed are the ordinary Oreek letters as far as we have observed^ except for 90 and #200. The 90 is a parely Coptic letter, and numeral of the same value. The sign of 200 we have failed to identify. As for the 90 it is similarly represented in A, D, and perhaps elsewhere. Finally^ in refers ence to outward appearances, there are certain blank spaces in the book^ and the arrangement is occasionally noticeable. Thus the beatitudes in St. Matthew are written as separate paragraphs, and the works of the flesh and the fruits of the spirit in Gala* tians form a list in which each word occupies a line.

Let us now say a word about the corrections. These are by different hands, and have been carefully assigned to their i*espec* tive authors by Dr. Tischendorf in his very copious and elaborate specification of them. Sometimes a passage has been corrected only once, at others twice or thrice. As a rule, perhaps, it will be safe to say that the corrections bring us mucn nearer to the received text. They often differ from it, but they often — more often — ^nearly or quite agree with it. This remark applies of course to the New Testament. After all the assimilation, how- ever, we may broadly say that the corrections cannot have been made from printed editions. They belong to widely different periods, but only a few of them appear to be recent. We had intended to give and to comment upon some of the readings and revisions of the text, but as there is a prospect of a speedy appearance of the popular edition of the New Testament, we waive that intention for the present although we have before us a mass of notes upon the subject.

It may not be undesirable to put on record here the general contents of this splendid work — ^a work which, merely as a specimen of typography, is every way admirable. It is, indeed, what the English Version calls ^' Apples of gold in pictures of siher.'' This applies to paper and typography only. The work is cut up into four volumes, which are merely slightly tacked together and put into cloth covers. We observe that Dr. Tischendorf has written to a contemporary explaining this ar- rangement, but we are convinced that it is a mistake/ Our plan

^ The CflericalJovmal of Jan. 15th contained a careful account of the Sinaitic Codex, with some remarks which called forth the following note. We hope no apolojpj is needed for giringit at length :

The ChtUx iSma»t»0u«.— The editor has receired a letter from Dr. Tischendoif, of which the followinff is a translation.

** M^ Dear Friend. — Yours of the 20th Jan. has again conveyed to me the sxprMsion of your kind and friendly feeling, for which I sincerely thank yov.

12 ne Codex Sinaiiiau. [April,

would hftTe been to make bat two volames of it^ by oombining what are now called II. and III. as the first, and I. and IV. as the second. B7 introducing the dedication into the beginning of what is now Vol. II., and adding a few words of explanation as to the plan of the work, we believe two noble volumes would have been produced : the one containing the Old Testament, the other the New Testament and critical apparatus, corrections, etc. It is now too late for this, but if a reprint is ever contemplated.

It has gratified me that the first commendation of the great work has onoe mote been made in England. Ton say very tmly that the noble resnlts with whi<^ Providence has * crowned' the researches of centnries belong to as all. It is especially dne to Engbmd that an interest so long oontinaed and so great has been devoted by me, and I may say restlessly continued and cultivated, on sacred soiL With regard to the division of the work into fonr volumes, I remark, that it appeared to me very desirable that the Prolegomena, especially the notes and fiic-similes, should correspond with the ancient text, even by my management of the printed fac-similes. This was possible only by the separation of the volumes. The Old Testament would have been left undivided, but that it would have made a very cumbrous volume, since it would have considerably exceeded in size a volume of the New Testament, which is rather unwieldy.

** You refer to the former ten copies at 251. I should be glad if in a few words you would return to that subject, as I am sorry to say a disturbance, I hope only temporary, has taken place in the book trade on account of them. The facts of the case, as stated in a notice by Carl F. Fieissig^r, and, it is to be hoped, published in Oxford through Parker, are these. I luid requested those first few copies from the Imperial C^vemment, with the definite ODJect of securing the possibility of a sale at least to some private persons, viz., in England. I did not consider this as determining the real business price. I regarded the matter as a liberal friendly accommodation, and on this account determined on 252. aa the price. These ten copies I offered to Williams and Norgate, and as they at once secured them, I could make no offer to any other bookseller. But in Dec. 1862 it was ordained by the Imperial Government that my honorarium should consist of one hundred copies, in consequence of this essential alteration of Uie former arrangement, according to which the Emperor had in an extensive circle given the work away, it naturally followed that a sale price should be determined tor all the future copies which were for sale. (The Baoer Godex Alexandrinns of the Old Testament, edited by the aid of the English Gk>vemment, was published at 37Z., though the execution of that work is far inferior to that of the Sinaitic) You can certainly impart this whole statement by way of explanation to your readers in my own words, if yon think proper.

" I have only now to offer my hearty expressions of regard, and the assur- ance of my sincere thanks for all your very friendly interest in mv labours, devoted as these have been to no country so much as to your own fatherland. I shall always rejoice at every fresh contact of your studies with my own.— Entirely yours, " C. Tischbndobp."

" Has no one undertaken the translation into English of my Aus dem heiUgem Lande t As my first Joumey in ike Batt^ in 1846, 1847, has appeared in a trans- lation, I was still more in hopes of the translation of the latest. In this book are presented reliquiao, as well as the most accurate information about the Codex, which, on account of the work being hurried, could not be given in the Prolegomena.

** A violent hroehure has recently appeared ap^nst the Codex Sinaiticus as of heretical origin, and against me, by Porphyndes of Petersburg, written in Russian. The old Minister of Instruction, Von Noroff, has already replied to it. For myself I shall not otherwise engage in the dirty controversy of a stupid and liinB^iAMi monk, who is foil of absura petty jealousy."

1803.] The Codex Sinaiiicui. 13

we hope, on various accounts, that it will be done. We also wish there had been introduced a carefully compiled list of the contents. In other respects, we greatly admire the book, and admit that it is executed in a better style of typography than onr own Codex A. (Saber's Old Testament portion) and Kipling's edition of D. In regard to its type as an imitation of the original characters, we know no letter-press eqaal to it. And now for a brief enumeration of the contents.

Vol. I. opens with the dedication to Alexander II., then follow the Prolegomena. After some preliminary obsenrations as to the difiSculty and magnitude of the undertaking, the gene- rosity of the Emperor, &c., we come at fol. 3 A to an account or a history of the Codex, and some notes upon the mode of prepar- ing the type, etc. At fol. 6 b, we have a description of the Codex, which extends to 11 a, where we have a discussion con- oerning the printed edition and its relations to the MS. as a book. On 11 6 we have the inquiry respecting the date and age of the Codex, with the various considerations which have led Dr. Tischendorf to ascribe it to about the middle of the fourth century. On 14 b we come to the remarks upon the chairacter of the text, and, in this section, various readings which it exhibits are enumerated and compared with other authorities as £Bur as possible.

After the programme comes the commeniarius in quo omnes eorrectorum antiquorum scripturte recenseniur ; additis nomnUlU notatu difffiis. This occupies forty-eight leaves, and is followed by the twenty-one lithographed plates of fac-similes, as follows :

1. Tobit ix. 2—10, 12, written by D.

2. Isaiah Ixii. 1 1 to Ixiv. 6, written by B. Here the corrector C^ has added the numbers of the sections ; C^ and C^ have, for the most part, been correctors of the text : erasures occur in the the text and in notes : thin lines have been made thicker ; and points and other signs have been added by correctors.

3. Ps. cxviii. 169 to cxxiii. 2, written by C, and corrected by C\

4. Canticles viii. 8 to Wisdom of Solomon i. 11, written by C, and corrected by C*.

6. Matt. V. 22 to vi. 4, written by A, corrected by A, B, C*«

6. Matt. X. 17 to ii. 5, written by A, with an addition in the margin.

7. Mark xvi. 2 to Luke i. 18 ; end of the Gospel at xvi. 8, with colophon, and additions by A and D.

8. Luke i. 18 — 56, written by D.

9. John V. 37 to vi. 23, written by A, corrected by A, B, and others.

10. Gal. iv. 12 to v. 20, written by A, corrected by A and C*.

14 The Codes SinaUic9»* [Aprils

11. Gal. T. 20 to Eph. i. ix. written by A, with singular arrangement of the works of the flesh and the firuits of the spirit^ the number of stichoe in Gal., the inscription to Ephesiana and €1/ E^ao) in the margin.

12. Heb. xii. 27, to xiii. 25, written by A, with oorrectiona of C% colophon and number of stichoe.

13. Acts ii. 28 — 39, written by A, with marks of quotation, reference to Ps. 109, and note of subject in the margin.

14. 1 John v. 5 to 2 John vii. written by A.

15. Rev. vii. 12 to ix. 5, written, by A, with Arabic note ia the margin, etc.

16. Bev. xxii. 19 to Barnabas ii* written by A, with interest* iu% corrections, etc.

17. Extract from Hermas, written by B. The passage 1

Titt. iii. 16, with correction of 09 into 69 ; an addition to Luke xxiv. 51, K<u ave^>€pero €is rov ovpavov by C'^ ; John i. 18, where o wi/ has been inserted by an early corrector, and the reading

fiovoyevif^ ^ is shewn ; Matt, xxiii. 35, viov ^pa')(jLov has been added by C^ etc.

18. Various examples of different kinds of corrections, coTo« phons, marginal notes, autographs of Dionysius and Hilarion, Arabic writing, etc.

19. Various specimens, including a comparison of this edition with Baber's Codex A.

2(X Miscellaneous specimens of the writing in other ancient manuscripts.

21. A continuation of the preceding examples.

Nothing can well be more interesting and beautiftil than these finely executed fao-similes.

Vol. II. of 87 folios, commences with the first portion of the Old Testament text. The contents are as follows : —

Folio 1. A single leaf from 1 Chron. ix. 27; xi. 22. (The Codex Friderico-Augustanus contains a Airther portion.)

2. The Book of Tobit from ii. 2, to the end. (The Codex Frid.-August. contains the missing portion.)

8. The Book of Judith, complete.

16. The first Book of Maccabees, complete.

84. The fi>arth Book of Maccabees. (This is the book com- monly appended to the works of Josephus, and is to be found in some MSS. and editions, but it is, we believe, accounted cano- nical by no church.)

42. The Book of the prophet Isaiah, complete.

68. Jeremiah i. 1 to x 25. (More of this is to be found in the Codex Frid.-Aug.)

This book is followed by nine of the minor prophets, vis. : —

186S.] 7%e Codex SinmHeiu. 16

1. Joel. 4. Nahum. 7. Haggai.

2. Obadiah. 5. Habakkuk. 8. Zechariah. 8. Jonah. 6. Zephaniah. 9. Malaebi.

Yol. III. in 1 12 folios^ contains what farther remains of the Old Testament books.

Folio 1. The Psalms. These are written stichometricallj, the arrangement agreeing in the main with that in the Alex- andrian Codex^ etc. Each page is divided into two columns only as in all the poetical books^ and when a line of text is too long for one of the manuscript it is severed and completed in the following line. The titles of the Psalms are written in red ink, and the supemnmerary Psalm is added.

41. The Book of Proverbs. 56. The Book of Ecclesiastes.

01. The Song of Songs. (The peculiarities of this book have been already mentioned above.)

64. The Wisdom of Solomon. 73. The Wisdom of Siiach«

98. The Book of Job.

All the books contained in this volume appear to be perfect. The position of Job is worthy of notice.

Vol. lY. Contains the booka of the New Testament, with the additions. The fitct of its containing every one of the books in our present New Testament canon is every way deserving of regard. At the same time, we do not see why it is made the subject of so much talk, as throwing a suspicion upon the anti- quity if not upon the genuineness of the manuscript. Is it not a fact that our own Codex A. contains every one of our present canonical books ? Is it not equally a fact that Codex JB. con- tains the same books so far as it is perfect, and at one time had them aU ? Yet A. was written about 450 a.ik, and B. was written a generation or two earlier. Dr. Tiscbendorf even, only daims for his Codex an age of a few years greater, about ^' the middle of the fourth century,'^ ex, in round numbers^, a.b. 850. We cannot yet feel safe in accepting this date> hnt even allow- ing it, there is proof enough that *' every one'' of the present canonical books was known before the date ascribed to the spu- rious oanon of the Laodicean Council ; i. e. before the date as- signed to the Sinaitio Codex by its discoverer.

We now come to the o^fdo librarum.

Folio 1. " According to Matthew :" (we will here take the titles given in the MS. as nearly as we can.)

According to Mark. (At the end, with a colophon, ^ Gospel acccNrding to M-ark.)

W. AcccNrding to Luke. 48. According to John.

62. To the B^omans. (Colophon the same.)

68. To the Corinthians^ A. (Colophon the same.)

16 T%e Codex Sinaiticus. [Aprils

76. To the Corinthians, B.

79. To the Oalatians. (So colophon.)

81. To the Ephesians. 84. To the Philippians.

85. To the Coloasians. 87. To the ThessdonianB, A,

89. To the Thessalonians, B. 89 6. To the Hebrews.

95. To Timothy, A. 96. To Timothy, B.

98. To Titus. 98 b. To Philemon.

100. Acts. (Colophon, Acts of Apostles.)

118 James. (No title, but colophon, ^^ Epistle of James.'')

120. Of Peter, Epistle A. (Colophon "of Peter, A.'')

122. Of Peter B. (So colophon.)

123. Of John, Epistle A. (So colophon.)

125. Of John, B. (So colophon.)

125 b. Of John, P. (So colophon.) 125 b. Jnde.

126. Apocalypse of John. (The name written with one n, UMVou ; BO also in the text ; but with two n's in the colophon.)

135. Of Barnabas, Epistle. (So colophon.)

142—148. Pastor. (The first part only.)

We cannot now discuss the many questions raised by the contents and arrangement of this canon of the New Testament, but we hope to say more of it before long. In the meantime, we hope that the fact of all the books being here will prejudice no one against the Codex, for the reasons already named. What is extraordinary and matter for profound thankfulness to Him who has given the Holy Scriptures to His Church, is that no one of the books of the New Testament is lacerated or imperfect, that the MS. of those books is entire, which is what cannot be said of either A, or B, or any other uncial known. Students of the canon will pay attention to the titles and orders of the books, which betray an age when canonization in two senses seems to have been unknown : the order of the books fluctuated, and the inspired writers were plain Peter, James, and John; Paul is not even named in the inscriptions to the books. That Hebrews might come before Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, we had learned from the Vatican MS. The position of Acts and the Catholic or canonical epistles is worthy of notice. The Apocryphal additions are not without precedent in one sense. There are codices in Greek, Latin, and Syriac, which are followed, or were followed, by books claiming to be of an apostolic age, or of the age following it. The presence of these things is, therefore, a certain presumption in favour of antiquity. Most persons will rejoice with us that by their recovery we are put into possession of some of the most coveted among the minor remains of Christian antiquity.

1868.] { 17 )

MEMOIBS OF BOSSTTET.

Few yonng men have entered upon life with such prospects as Bossuet. Besides his personal distinction^ he was supported by the influence of not a few persons of consideration. There was good old Nicolas Cornet, his tried and faithful counsellor and friend^ a man well known and esteemed in Paris and at court ; intimately acquainted with the chief officers of the state, and especially with the Cardinal Mazarin and the papal missions. Then there was Comet the Bishop of Lisieux, who, although no longer at court, used his influence on behalf of Bossuet. Vincent de Paul, as we have seen, did his utmost to promote his interests in the highest circles. The Marshall and Marchioness de Schomberg were among the foremost of his friends, and used all their influence on his behalf. Fran9oi8 Bossuet his kinsman^ the secretary of council, was ever active in advancing his wel- fare; and was Sustained in his endeavours by Marguerite de Beauverand his wife. This lady was favoured with particular consideration by not a few of the most illustrious personages of the time. To these may be added the Marchioness de Sennecy> the niece of Cardinal Larochefoucald, and very highly connected. It was through her influence, and that of her daughter, the Countess de Fleix, that Bossuet was introduced to the Queen> Anne of Austria, and engaged to preach before her.^

Nicolas Cornet was very anxious to promote the interests of Bossuet through Cardinal Mazarin, whose authority was suffi- cient to secure any amount of patronage. Cornet had conceived the idea of erecting at the College of Navarre a building, whose magnificence might compete with that which Richelieu had erected for the Sarbonne, and laid his proposal before the cardinal. Mazarin fell in with the project, and thought nothing would be more honourable to his ministry than to imitate the example of his predecessor, and even to attempt to surpass it. But when the matter came to an issue Comet hesitated, because of his age and infirmity. He feared he should not live to see the plan carried out, and that if he and the cardinal died before its completion^ it might never be accomplished. However, being anxious to provide a successor, he earnestly solicited Bossuet to accept the place of President of Navarre. To persuade him to this, he employed every argument in his power.

' See /. iSl fj.f for January, 1862, p. 291. * Le Dieu.

NEW SERIES — VOL. III., NO. V. C

18 Memoirs of Bosstiei. [April,

But Bossuet declined the honour^ and preferred to go to Metz^ where he resolved to occupy himself with the duties of his office of canon and archdeacon.

Interesting details are left on record of the assiduity of Bossuet^ both in his studies and in his attendance upon religious duties^ during the period which followed, as well as during that which preceded his licentiate. Both at Navarre and at Metz he profoundly studied the Scriptures, which he used as a text- book. To this he added a careful and diligent investigation of the fathers and councils of the church. For scholastic theology he took for his guide Thomas Aquinas, of whom one of the popes is said to have declared, that what he wrote was altogether without error. Among the fathers of the church he still accorded the pre-eminence to Augustine and Chrysostom. He regarded the last of these as a model of pulpit eloquence, and as the most perfect preacher the church had ever had. He considered Augustine worthy of all honour. He made long extracts from his writings upon theological doctrines, and upon preaching. He filled lus copy of this father with his annotations, and never took a journey without it. So completely was he under the direction of Augustine, that he used him in the establishing of every doctrine, in conveying every instruction, and in solving every difficulty. There he found the defence of the faith, and the rule of life. If he had a sermon to make he took St. Augustine ; if he had an error to combat he took St. Augus- tine; and indeed he consulted him continually. Probably Augustine never had a closer student, a warmer admirer, or a more docile disciple. Another of his favourite authors was Bernard, whom he particularly honoured as a faithful follower of Augustine, as a man of superior genius, and above all of devout and earnest piety.

The account given by Le Dieu of Bossuet's attachment to the Holy Scriptures is well worthy of perusal, and is as follows :

" It is only necessary to see bis New Testament and his Bible to be convinced of the continual use he made of them. Although he knew almost by heart the text of the Holy Scripture, he never ceased to read and to re-read it all the days of his life, and to make new observations upon it. These are, now upon the doctrine, now upon morals, upon the person and character of Jesus Christ, upon his discourses, and upon his sayings, upon all the circumstances of his life and death ; upon the per- sons and characters of the apostles, their faith, their zeal, and their testi- mony. Nothing escaped him. Everything is marked, even to the smallest things, from which he drew admirable lessons in conversation, in private conferences, and in sermons. He said to the priests, as Jerome to Ne- potian, ' Let this book never go out of your hands ;' but above all the

1868.] Memoiri of Bossuet 19

New Testament, which he constantly declared to be the source of all piety and good doctrine.

" When he had to treat of some doctrine he took his New Testament, and read it with as great assiduity as if he had never opened it. But how did he read it ? By way of meditation, that he might be more deeply impressed with the truths which he wished to establish or to clear up. He might be seen on his short or on liis long journeys (for he laboured everywhere), he was to be seen in his chamber, at mass, and elsewhere, with the Gospel in his hand, and more often closed than open, profoundly meditating upon the words which he had impressed upon his memory. Afterwards he would take his pen and write rapidly the discourses and in- stmctious on which he had meditated with so much attention. But when he had no book to compose, his life was like that of St. Augustine, a con* tinoal meditation upon the Word of God ; not an idle, dry or barren, meditation, but lively and simple, with a fixed purpose and a certain effect. This is sufficiently shewn by his works. In fine, it was his prayer, for he read it in the spirit of prayer, to nourish thereby his piety and his fervour, only turning from it with difficulty, like St. Augustine, to occupy himself with temporal affiairs. This is why he always had at hand a New Testa- ment with his breviary. One day, in 1688, he was heard to say, without any affectation, to a man who was wholly devoted to him, on giving him, during a journey, his New Testament to lay it by, ' God be praised, 1 have finished once more the reading of the New /Testament, which I began again for that purpose.' Another time, after having meditated upon chapters ix. — xi. to the Komans, on the subject of some new interpretations upon these passages, contrary to the mind of St. Paul, aud after having ended the pemsal full of the reasons by which he refuted the folse and erroneoas sentiments, which he explained in conversation, he concluded by letaming the book, and saying, with simplicity to his confessor, who was present, ' See here, reverend father, the ordinary subject of my medita- tions/ This was no idli) boast. It was a thing established in all his houses, in the court, the city, and the country, to find everywhere upon his bureau a Bible and a concordance. He could not dispense with it, nor live without it. But there will be other opportunities of speaking of his love of Holy Scripture, and they are reserved till then. He will never he forgotten in his last illness, during which, for fifteen months, he found neither relief nor consolation but in the reading of the sacred Books."

His admiration for Augustine and others has been already mentioned, and it would not be right to omit Origen, whose happy reflections, and tenderness of expression, he often com- mended. He did more than commend him, be borrowed from lus writings freely such illustrations and ideas as he found adapted to his purpose. It may also be observed that Gregory of Nazianzum was another of the fathers most studied by Bossuet.

Studies such as these could not fail to produce a marked influence upon the man. Hence we find that through life, while

c 2

20 Memoirs of Bossuei, [Apnl^

he had the most profound attaehment to the Bible^ he had the most childlike submissioB to the teachings of the church as represented by the fathers and the councils. No man ever more abhorred novelties^ and wherever he found or. fancied he found them^ in pope or priest^ in the churchy or in the world, he attacked them with uniform and unsparing perseverance. He never dreamed of thinking otherwise than after the model of the ancients^ and hence we find him often in contact with opinions which were after all^ perhaps, less heretical than the result of modern experiences, and of modem associations. Had his idea of the duty of implicit submission to the teachings of the church during thirteen centuries been less profound, and had he believed that the statements of the fathers and the decisions of councils were to be interpreted by the Scripture, instead of Scripture by them, Bossuet might have become a heretic or a Protestant. His candour, honesty, and courage, not to say his conscientious- ness, were equal to anything. But he was a priest, he was a son of the church, and dutiful was his allegiance. Hence he never wavered in his attachment.

But while at Metz, he did something more than study. He was the first by day and by night at all the offices of the church, as if his only talent lay in celebrating the praises of Gk)d. His piety had led him to feel that in the Lord^s house nothing is mean, but that everything is great ; and he never neglected the least of his duties. He appears ail his life to have been very fond of the public services of the church, and particularly the chanting of the Psalms, in which he exhibited considerable skill. Apart from his early attachment to this kind of occupa- tion, he was endowed with a voice which was sweet, sonorous, and flexible, and withal powerful and masculine. He displayed no affectation, and was heard with pleasure.

The fruits of his study and devotion soon began to appear. The Marshall de Schombei^ and his excellent lady often urged him to preach for their edification, as well as to give him an opportunity of exercising himself, and of displaying his talents, which they were anxious should be better known. They had no greater pleasure than in hearing him. On Sunday, daring Epiphany, when he was dining with them, they engaged him to give them a sermon appropriate to the season. It was impos- sible for him to refiise, although he was not fond of imprompta efforts, and thought them somewhat disrespectful to the Word of Ood. He therefore consented, and took for his subject the changing of water into wine. He took occasion from this to speak of the law changed into grace, fear changed into love, and figures changed into truth. His success was marked ; his bril-

1863.] Memoin of Boiwet. 21

liant ftnd pathetic style filled his hearers with as much admiration and surprise, as his eztensiye knowledge and remarkable facility.

There is little doubt that Bossuet was quite right in his dislike of such exhibitions of skill, they were a kind of spiritual gladiator- ship which shocked and offended his piety^ as beneath the dignity of the pulpit, and derogatory from the solemnity with which God's Word should be heard and preached. But had he lived in our day, he would have witnessed a taste equally depraved, and far more general, and he would have seen myriads of orthodox and evangelical Protestants on the alert to watch every similar exhi- bition. How many modern preachers have been popular because of their witty speeches, their unblushing egotism, their loud denunciation of others, their vulgar jokes, and other similar stale, flat, and unprofitable stuff? How many wise and good, earnest and devout men of character have been left to preach in empty churches, while these mountebanks, or enthusiasts, religious quacks, and upstart gospel-mongers, have carried the church and the world before them. ''Not this man but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.'^ This digression will it is hoped be excused by the enlightened reader.

There were in France at that time certain titular bishops, whose care was not for the flock but for the fleece. Among them we have already alluded to Mazarin, who was no priest, but held the see of Metz with the title of bishop. This abuse was very common, and originated chiefly with the concordat of Leo X. and Francis I., in virtue of which the king had the right of nominating to the bishoprics. Of course he made use of his privilege in giving the best benefices to the younger sons of good fiimilies, to his bastards, to those of princes and of great men, who neither took orders, nor practised the virtues which make men worthy of them. De Verneuil, as already named above, another titular bishop, was the illegitimate son of Henry IV ., and whose life even at sixty years of age was such that he was strongly recommended to marry. This he could not do as a bishop, he therefore renounced his diocese, and married the widow of the Duke de Sully. It is some consolation to know, that bad as these titular bishops often were, they frequently appointed as their vicars men of real excellence and piety, who were a bless- ing to their dioceses, where the nominal bishops were only known as the recipients of the revenues.

Pierre de Bedacier, a member of the order of Cluny, first ricar-general of Marmoustier, and afterwards bishop of Augusta, in partibuSf was then suffragan and vicar-general of the diocese of Metz, for M. De Verneuil the titular bishop, and filled the same post under succeeding bishops. This man was very much

32 Memoirs of Bossuei. [April,

attached to Bossnet^ of whom he bad so high an opinion^ that he often took his advice and counsel, and employed him on all kinds of occasions^ and particularly in controversy with the Cal- yinists, or Reformed, who were very numerous at Metz.

This opened before him a field of labour, which his ambition prompted him to enter on, and in which he thought he could most effectually serve the church to which he had devoted him* self. His deep study and admiration of the fathers, had made his soul loathe heresy^ and in nothing would he have greater satisfaction than in imitating their zeal for the conversion of heretics. But the Protestants had been often provoked^ and were both sensitive and suspicious ; it was, thereforci necessary before all things to conciliate them and to gain their confidence. To this task Bossuet forthwith applied himself, and his reputa- tion for knowledge, talent, piety, and other good qualities, assisted him in it. He succeeded in gaining the good will of some of the leading Protestants of the city, and was on terms of friend- ship with Paul Ferry, a man of wisdom, a literary character, and the best informed and most influential of their ministers. The result was, that those who had any doubts about the re- formed religion applied to him, or were referred to him by Bedacier, and the Marshal de Schombei^.

It was not long before an incident occurred which enabled him to display in a more open and efficient manner his zeal for his church.

Bossuet had all along believed that to strike at the root of the evil he must deal with the Protestant minister himself, and he now found an opportunity. Ferry published a Catechism of which the title was: — Catichisme giniral de la Rtformaiion, prechi dans Metz. Par Paul Ferry, Ministre de la Parole de Dieu. Sedan, 1654. The object of this catechism was to esta- blish these two propositions: ^'1. That the Reformation was necessary. 2. That although before the B/cformation a man could be saved in the communion of the Roman church, it was no longer possible.^^ The Bishop of Augusta had no sooner seen this work than he saw that it might be very dangerous, and forthwith set Bossuet to attempt its refutation. The task was readily undertaken, and in 1655 appeared Bossuet's first printed work, with this title : Refutation du Catichisme du Sieur Paul Ferry. The book was published with the approbation of the Bishop of Augusta, who passed a very high encomium upon its author. To the two propositions of Ferry, Bossuet opposed the following: — 1. That the Reformation, as our adversaries have undertaken it, is pernicious. 2. That if salvation were once pos- sible in the Roman Church, it is still possible in that communion.

1868.] Memoirs of BossueL 28

These propositions he endeavoured to establish on Ferry's own principles. He concluded that salvation was impossible in the reformed church, because salvation was not possible in schism.

It may not be out of place to give a few additional particulars concerning this treatise, not only because it was the first pub- lished work of Bossuet, but because justice cannot otherwise be done to the controversy. We shall^ therefore, add a few notes and observations founded upon a careful examination of the writing, which undoubtedly bears the impress of Bossuet's pecu- liar genius, and exhibits, more or less, that overbearing power and energy which characterized his subsequent controversies with Claude and Jurieu, as well as with F^nelon himself.

And now see all their difficulties removed. A careful study of this controversy is admirably adapted to teach us that charity which hopeth all things, and that forbearance to which Ferry, not less than Bossuet, was too much a stranger.

The declarations of kindness and good will towards the Pro- testants, contained in this first work of Bossuet, were reiterated in all his controversial publications, down to the last. Nor is there any reason to doubt his sincerity. As we proceed we shall find him giving the weight of his sanction to measures of seve- rity; but he did this not only A. M. D. G.,'' as the Jesuits and others would say, but also because he fondly hoped it would be for their benefit in the end. A terrible doctrine truly, and one which would justify all extremes of persecution.

It is affirmed that Bossuet's work met with immense success, and gave a terrible blow to the Huguenot party. Ferry himself, says Le Dieu, was so far wrought upon, that so far from re- nouncing his friendship for his opponent, he had a number of interviews with him on the subject, and concluded by resolving to renounce Protestantism, and to re-enter the church from which he had unhappily wandered. Nothing but a feeling of false honour prevented him from carrying this resolution into effect during his life-time. But his purpose was known, and on his death-bed he openly professed it to the elders of the con- sistory, and to the members of his family. He earnestly re- quested to see M. Bossuet, to place in his hands his renunciation of his errors, and his reconciliation to the Romish Church. The fears of his fellow-ministers and others about him prevented this request from being complied with, and he died nominally a Protestant. This was fourteen years after the publication of Bossuet's refntation. Whether this statement is true or not, the Catholics of Metz published a pamphlet containing a narra-

* Ad tnajorem Dei gloriamj For the greater glory of God.

24 Memoirs of Bossuet. [April,

tibn to that effect, and oomplainiiig loadly that the ProtestantB of the city had violated their consciences, because it was notori- ous that their elders, and the relatives of Ferry, had placed an obstacle in the way of his conversion, by preventing his inter- view with Bossuet.

We are not in a position to deny these reports, they may or they may not be true ; we hope, and we think they are not, and yet it is singular that Ferry does not appear to have replied to the refutation of his work. It is very improbable that a man should retain his office as a Protestant minister for fourteen years after he ceased to be a sincere believer of the doctrines he preached, and especially whe.n he made no secret of the change he had undergone. The part which relates to his dying wish may be, and probably is, an exaggerated rumour.

The book of Bossuet was, however, not without fruit. From time to time he visited Paris, where he soon became much talked of in consequence of his displays of oratory. He pronounced the panegyric of St. Victor in the abbey of that saint; the panegyric of St. Peter in the church of St. Paul ; and that of St. Paul in the same church. The latter was on the festival of the conversion of St. Paul, from the text : — Surrewit Pauhu de terra : Saul arose from the earth. On this occasion he set forth all the power of victorious grace upon hearts the most rebellious, and with such brilliancy that an ear- witness says nothing else was talked of, and his discourse was called, by way of distinction, the SurrexU Paulas of Bossuet. There can be no doubt that he was particularly happy in the choice of his texts, and in the con- struction of his plans, while his style of composition was very elevated, and his action remarkably impassioned. No wonder that he knew how to gain and rivet the attention of his hearers. Among other discourses of this period, there was one preached for the Confrerie du Bosaire, in 1657, which was much talked of at the time.

During the year just named the queen-mother undertook a journey to Metz, where she frequently heard of Bossuet and of his efforts for the conversion of the Protestants. It was said that he had been very successful in his endeavours in various ways, and especially by means of his book. The prejudices of the reformed were said to be giving way, and many were favour- ably disposed towards the Bomish Church. A mission, as it was called, or a special effort for the conversion of Protestants, was resolved upon. The Queen appointed Vincent de Paul, in whom she placed great confidence, to superintend this mission. He selected from among the members of bis Tuesday conference, already spoken of, those who were considered the best qualified,

1868.] MemairM of Bossuet. 25

and placed the Abb^ de Chandenier, nephew of Cardinal de la Bochefoncanlt^ at their head.

An acti?e correspondence was immediately opened between the parties. Vincent de Paul wrote to Bossuet, and several letters <^ the latter to him are still extant. This was in the early part of the year 1658. It appears from the letters that Bossnet had a principal hand in laying plans for commencing operations. The queen herself addressed to him a lettre de cachet, which the bishop of Augusta received from her own hand. At length the priests^ who had been chosen for the mis- sion, went down to Metz^ where they took up their abode with Bossnet, and made their final preparations in concert with him. The mission was opened on Ash- Wednesday, 1658. First came a course of sermons in the cathedral and in the parish church of the citadel of Metz. In this latter Bossuet preached, and left the episcopal pulpit, which he had often occupied, to the mis- sionaries from Paris. Next came a series of conferences for the particular instruction of Protestants. Bossuet was the soul of the movement, indicating those of whom he hoped favourably, and in fact directing everything. They were so well satisfied with the results of this enterprize, that Chandenier wrote to Vincent de Paul to say how much they owed to the ^' Apostolic labours of the Abbe Bossuet, and to the protection of the bishop of Augusta,^' adding that both well merited special letters of thanks from him. These letters of thanks were duly forwarded, and Bossuet was especially felicitated on the part he had taken.

Bossuet did not forget this, and many years later, when he wrote to the pope to solicit the canonization of Vincent de Paul, he made use of these words : " Fuit etiam illud nobis desideratis- simum tempus quo eorum laboribus sociati, Metensem ecclesiam, in qua tunc eoclesiasticis officiis fungebamur, in vitse pascua de- ducere conabamur : cujus missionis fructus venerabilis Vincentii non modo piis instigationibus, verum etiam precibus tribuendos, nemo non sensit.'^''

Oue of the consequences of this mission was, that the bishop, who was very anxious for the conversion of heretics, established in his diocese a community of ladies, who were to undertake the iostruction of their own sex, at least of such as were inclined to become Catholics. Bossuet was appointed their superior, and drew up a series of regulations for the community — which was afterwards printed.

r

' That was aUo to us a blessed season, in which, associated in their h&boars, we endeayoared to lead the church of Metz into the pastures of life : every one perceiyed that the results of that mission were to he ascribed not only to the pious suggestions of the venerable Vincent, but also to his prayers.

26 Memoirs of Bossuet. [April,

In Lent^ 1658^ Bossuet preached to the Minims of the Place Boyale to overflowing audiences. His panegyric of St. Francis de Paol^ and that of St. Theresa^ had a marvellous success. He was at that time in Paris on the business of the church of Metz, which not only placed in him implicit confidence^ but sought to honour itself by honouring him.

To return to Vincent de Paul. His attachment to Bossuet was such that he earnestly requested and induced him to conduct the conferences for the Easter ordination at St. Lazarein 1659, and for the Whitsuntide ordinations in 1660, on the 27th of September, of which year Vincent went the way of all flesh. His successor, Ben^ Almeras, continued the liaison with Bossuet, and engaged him to conduct the conferences for the ordinations of 1668 and 1669. These engagements of Bossuet were so po- pular, that those who were to be ordained endeavoured to arrange for the time when they could listen to him. Testimony to this effect is borne by the Abbe Claude Fleury, who was one of them, and subsequently attained to great eminence by his ap- pointment as sub*preceptor of the Duke de Bourgogne, son of Louis the Dauphin, and confessor of his son, afterwards Louis XV. Fleury's life at court, says Voltaire, was one of solitude and labour. He was the associate of F^nelon, was a member of the French Academy, was prior of Argenteuil, and was author of a number of works, among which Ecclesiastical History is perhaps best known and most valued. He was the friend of Bossuet, who many years after corresponded with him, as is shewn by Le Dien, in his journal. Fleury died in 1722.

Bossuet continued his connexion with St. Lazare till his decease, and frequent references to it will be fouiid in his life and writings.

While Bossuet resided in Paris, as the deputy of the church of Metz, he lodged at the deanery of St. Thomas du Louvre, where dwelt at that time several other persons of literary habits, and of sterling worth. Among them are mentioned, De Lamet, his old friend, like himself a doctor of Navarre, and dean of the church of St. Thomas. This De Lamet was of a noble family in Picardy, and was equally distinguished for his attainments and for his integrity. He was closely attached to the Cardinal de Betz, whom he followed in his honour and in his dishonour. The cardinal himself bears witness to this incidentally in his Memoirs, where he says : '^ L^abb^ de Lamet, mon maitre de chambre, qui n^a jamais voulu toucher un sol de moi dans tout le cours de ma disgrace, ^toit moins capable du dernier (cove- tousness), qu'homme que je connoisse. Son humeur, naturelle- ment difficultueuse, faisoit qu'il ^toit assez susceptible du pre*

1863.] Memoirs of Bauuei. 27

mier (anger) parcequ^il ^toit 6chB.ViS6 par Jo\j"' De Lamet was distinguished as a casaist^ was the director of a number of religious houses^ was chaplain to criminals at the place of execu- tion^ and liberally provided for the support of poor students; he died in 1661^ being then seventy years of age^ and consequently the senior of Bossuet. Other members of this family gathering were the Abbe du Plessis^ de la Brunetiere^ afterwards Grand Yicaire of Paris and bishop of Saintes ; the Abbe d'Hocquinoourt, afterwards bishop of Verdun ; the Abb^ Janon^ his relative ; the Abb^ Tallemant, the elder^ prior of St. Irenaeus^ of Lyons^ and St. Laurent^ who was charged with the introduction of the am- bassadors to the prince royal, and translator of Plutarch. Such were the companions of his sojourn at Paris, and doubtless in their society he passed a happy time.

But in the month of October, 1660, his friend and patron, Pierre de Bedacier, bishop of Augusta, fell sick on his way from Paris to Metz, at Ch&teau-Thierry, and died at the Chftteau du Charmel. Anxious to shew his good will and esteem for Bossuet, he summoned him to Charmel, and placed in his hands the deanery of Oassicourt, near Mantes, of the order of Cluny. Mazarin, who was abbot of Ciuny, took the preliminary mea* sures for collating him to this benefice, but dying soon after, in March, 1661, his right was contested. A lawsuit was insti- tuted, and Bossuet was confirmed in his title by the kindness of the Ahh6 le Tellier, afterwards archbishop of Rbeims, his friend, who satisfied the opposing claimant by the gift of a priory in his nomination.

The friend of Bossuet wondered that he was so little pro- moted, but, in fact, he was so occupied with his studies and his ministry, that he thought little of promotion. One proposed to make him cur6 of St. Eustache, another cure of St. Sulpice, but he obtained neither place. In 1662, however, the deanery of Metz became vacant, and the canons unanimously offered it to him. There was one Boyer, formerly a canon, who was anxious to obtain this dignity. He was the intimate friend of Bossuet, and had given him the canonicate which he had held so long. He was very old, and was anxious to die the dean of Metz. He therefore came to Bossuet, and begged to be allowed to stand before him. ^' You are young,*' said he, "and I am old, you will come to it in your turn, and I promise not to keep the place more than two years.*' Bossuet told him he would consent with all his heart, and not to place any obstacle in his way, with- drew from Metz during the election, and went to Paris. Boyer

' Mimoirea du Cardmed de Setz. Liv. v. Snb. Ann., 1655. Joly was the cardinal's Becretary, and also the author of Memoirs.

28 Memoirs of Bossuet. [April,

was appointed in 1662, and true to his word, died two jears afterwards. Bossnet was elected his snccessor in September, 1664, and his income was thereby raised to from eight to ten thousand livres per annum/ on which he thought himself passing rich, and was satisfied with his condition.

From the fact that we find among his friends persons at- tached to the opposite parties of Cardinal Mazarin and de Bets, it would seem that he took no part in the political questions of the time. In this he acted wisely and in harmony with his pro- fession and desire to be simply and only an ecclesiastic. Even in after life he had very little to do with the affairs and measures of state, except when connected directly with religion.

Bossuet's reputation had made him many friends among the princes and great lords at court. The Prince de Conde had long known and esteemed him. Turenne also cherished for him a warm affection. This great man was bom in 1611. Originally a Protestant, and for many years the most distinguished man of that profession in France, he eventually attached himself for- mally to the Roman communion, and was received by the Arch- bishop of Paris. He had obtained the glory of being one of the greatest warriors and generals of his age, and his conversion, if conversion it could be called^ although made so much of at the time, and after his death by Flechier, who pronounced over him a magnificent oration, added nothing to the lustre of his cha- racter, and not much to his political influence. The story told by De Retz of the attempt of the bishop of Lisieux to convert Turenne, is too long for insertion, but shews with sufficient plain- ness that he was {dtogether a man of the world, and not pos- sessed by any very deep religious convictions of any sort. Flechier makes him a hero before his conversion, and no doubt he was one, but it is to be feared he was not quite so much of a saint afterwards as the preacher represents him. One after another the noble members of the reformed church had deserted it. Turenne had but followed their example — that of Cond^, for instance. The families of Bouillon, Chatillon, Rohan, Sully, Tremoille, had acceded to the wish of the king, and entered the Catholic church. Those that remained were few but noble, among them were Count de Schomberg, the Duke de la Force, a branch of the house of La Rochefoucault, numerous descendants of the famous Duplessis Mornay, the Marquis de Ruvigny, and others of inferior note.^ The abjuration of Turenne, about 1667, added to the weakness, and perhaps to the woes of the

/ Not more than 400 pounds sterling.

' De Felice, HiHoire de$ Prote^tanta de France.

1%63.^ Memoirs of Bossuet. 29

party he abandoned. His death took place on the battle-field^ near Saasbach, in the year 1675.

Another of Bossuet's friends in high places was the Abb^, afterwards Cardinal de Bouillon, who some years later took the part of Fenelon in the discussions relating to .Quietism, and when at Borne used his utmost endeavours to thwart the mea- sures taken by Louis XIY. for the condemnation of the famous Maxims of the Saints.* As might be expected, this conduct lost for him the favour of the king, who ordered him back to France. He shewed the independence of his spirit by reiiising to obey the royal mandate, and was in consequence deprived of all his dignities and benefices. We shall most probably meet with him again when we come to speak of the unhappy and disgraceful controversy to which the circumstances alluded to refer, near the close of the life of Bossuet.

Among his patrons, Bossuet also reckoned the distinguished Chancellor Michel le Tellier, whose name is constantly met with in the histories of the time. He was born in 1603, of an honourable family, and early attained to eminence in the legal profession. He was selected in 1643, by Cardinal Mazarin, to fill the office of Secretary of State. He was always particularly attached to his sovereign, of whose ministers he was one of the most faithful and disinterested. He retired soon after Mazarin, during the storm of 1651, but was speedily recalled, and when the cardinal was compelled a second time to give way and leave the kingdom, upon Le Tellier lay almost the entire burden of the administration. As a reward for his services, when order was restored, he was made grand treasurer in 1654, with unli- mited control over the royal coffers. When, in 1677, Louis made him Keeper of the Great Seals and Chancellor of France, being then seventy-four years of age, he said to the king, ^' Sire, you have honoured my famUy, and crowned my tomb.^' He was devoted to the interests of that religious communion to which he belonged. He maintained the liberties of the Oallican church with vigour. ''He regarded the revocation of the Edict of Nantes as one of the greatest events of the reign of Louis XIY. Only consulting the advantage of seeing the church and state revenged for all that modem heretics had made them suffer, he sealed with extreme satisfaction and with tears of joy the de- claration which abrogated that ancient Edict, and testified, like that holy old man Simeon, that he departed from the world in peace and consolation, now that he had seen the accomplish-

* M^moirea de St Simon. Vol. ii., chap. 1, where St. Simon narrates the drcomstance in a very indignant tone.

80 Memoirs qf Boasuet. [Aprili

ment of his desires/'^ It is not every one who can participate in his delight at this arbitrary^ tyrannical and monstrous mea- sure. Le Tellier died on October 28^ 1685^ at the age of eighty- three years^ and Bossuet pronounced over him one of his splendid funeral orations^ an oration in which^ however, he exhibits him- self in the unenviable character of apologist and panegyrist of that cruel and suicidal act which took from the Protestants of France their legal existence.

To return to our narrative. The Marchioness de Sennecy and the Countess de Fleix were very anxious that Bossuet should preach before the queen-mother, and watched their opportunity. This occurred before long. It appears that the queen was in the habit of frequenting the church of the Feuillans, in the Bue St. Honore for the purpose of performing her devotions. There also M. Bossuet, secretary of the council, had a chapel, and was in consequence on friendly terms with the Feuillans, from whom he readily obtained permission for his relative the abb^ to pro- nounce the panegyric of St. Joseph, on which occasion he had no doubt the queen would be there. She came, as was expected^ accompanied by her maids of honour. Scarcely had the abb^ named his text, deposUum cuatodi (keep that which is committed to thy trust) than the interest of his hearers was excited, and they listened with delight to his eloquence. The preacher expa- tiated upon the profundity of the divine counsels in reference to the Incarnation, the secret of which had been committed as a sacred trust to Joseph, as well as the care of Christ and of his holy mother. He shewed the wisdom of Joseph in reference to this mystery, an unbroken silence all his life, without seeking to derive honour from it to himself. The success of the sermon was BO great that the queen forthwith requested its repetition the following year. Bossuet was himself accustomed to speak of it as one of the best sermons he had made. Santeuil de St. Victor, who was present, was so smitten with admiration of this discourse, that he often afterwards spoke of it, and in a hymn which he wrote in honour of Joseph, employed the words depo- siium Dei in the same sense as the preacher had done. The sermon was afterwards known as the deposiium custodiJ

To return to the preaching of Bossuet. On September 8, 1660, he delivered a sermon before the queen and a full court, on occasion of Madame de Bouillon taking the veil. This lady was sister of the Cardinal de Bouillon. In 1661, he preached during Lent in the chapel of the Carmelites, commencing with

' Histoire abrade M. TeUUr^ prefixed to the faneral oration of Bossuet. J Aooonnt of &nteuil.

1863.] Memoirs of Bo$8uet. 81

the sermon on the Parification^ which had great success. Large andieDces attended to hear these sermons, which were founded upon the Gospels for the day. Amoug his hearers might be seen not a few eminent for their learning and literary character, and in every corner of the place the Port-Boyalists distinguished themselves by the zeal with which they excited the applause of the congregation. Noel de la Lane, of a good family in Paris, and doctor in theology, and the Abb^ de Valcroissant, equally eminent for his learning, his piety, and his active defence of Jan- senius, at Rome, were especially distinguished. Valcroissant li?ed at Navarre, where he had witnessed Bossuet^s growth in piety and virtue ; he was devotedly attached to him, and was among his most constant hearers.

The association of Bossuet with the Carmelites continued till his death. This was owing not merely to the high opinion he had of their piety, but to the fact that among their members were to be found the relations of not a few of his illustrious friends.

In Lent, 1661, he repeated his deposiium cusiodi according to the request and in the presence of the court. The queen- mother had been so delighted with this sermon the year before that she followed the preacher wherever he was called upon to display his eloquence. His success procured for him the honour of preaching before the king himself. This was in Advent, 1661, when he was but thirty-four years of age. He also preached before the king in Lent, 1662. His Majesty was so delighted that he had a letter written and sent in his name to Bossuet^s aged father, at Metz, complimenting him on the talents of his son, and declaring the satisfaction with which he had heard him.

During this year Bossuet was offered the deanery of Metz, of which mention has been already made.

Madame de Montpensier, whose relative, Madame Henrietta de Lorraine, was abbess of Jouarre, took with her Bossuet to preach at the festival of All-Saints, in 1662. He took for his text the words " Amen, Alleluia,^' " praise and thanksgiving,'^ in which he made all the life of the blessed to consist according to the opinion of Augustine. The Alleluia sermon was much talked of at the time.

In 1663, Bossuet preached in Lent at Yal-de-Grace before the queen, who admired him exceedingly and regarded him as her preacher in ordinary.

It would be impossible, and is unnecessary to notice all his sermons, but it is worthy of remark that he this year (1663) preached his iirst funeral oration. Nicolas Cornet, grand master

82 Memoirs of Bossuet. [Aprils

of NaTarrCj and the firiend of Bossuet from his yoath^ died at the age of seventy-one^ the 1 8th of Aprils 1668. Nine days after his death a solemn service was performed in the chapel of the college where he had been buried. De la Motte Houdancourt^ Archbishot> of Auch^ officiated pontifically^ and the Archbishop of Paris^ with many other prelates^ were present. Bossuet pro- nounced the funeral oration, and manifested thereby his extraor- dinary fitness for that kind of composition. Of the oration for Comet it may suffice to say, that although printed many years after, the published copy was considered as not doing justice to the orator, who refused to acknowledge it.

The activity of Bossuet was incessant; besides his frequent preaching and other ministerial engagements, he conducted the examinations of students for various scholarships and such like^ in which he more than sustained the reputation he had already acquired.

In 1664, the duke de Luynes, who had formed a very high opinion of Bossuet, took him, in company with the bishop of P6rigueux, to the abbey of Jouarre, where his two daughters were about to make their profession. The bishop preached on the 7th of May, and Bossuet on the 8th.

To this year may probably be assigned the commencement of Bossuet's active exertions in reference to Jansenius and the nuns of Port-Royal. A few words of explanation will be neces- sary, although it is needless to enter upon the details of that famous controversy which employed some of the ablest pens in France, and drew the attention of Europe ; but is now rightly re- garded by some of the most thoughtful men as a discussion from which no practical advantages could ever be expected. It is too frequently the case that theological dispute waxes hot in propor- tion as it becomes involved and conversant with abstract specu- lations. And so it was here.

Cornelius Jansenius was bom in Holland, in 1585, and even- tually became bishop of Ypres, where he died in 1638. He was the author of several works, and among others of one called Augtistinus, which was not published till after his death. This work was directed against the views of the Jesuits respecting divine grace. The Jesuits forthwith attacked the work, and profusely extracted from it five propositions, which they suc- ceeded in having condemned at Rome by the Pope Innocent X. The Port-Royalists accepted the condemnation of the heretical propositions, but not as the doctrine of Jansenius. The Jesuits next succeeded in getting these propositions condemned as the doctrine of Jansenius. On this question a controversy arose which was carried on for a century. The Port-Royalists refused

1868.] Memoirs of Bossuet. 38

to agn the declaration. Antoine Arnauld and the Bchool of Port-Royal persevered in this refusal, in which they were imi- tated by the nuns of Port-Eoyal, whose abbess was Aruauld's sister. Bossuet believed that these parties were right, as it re- spected their doctrine, but that they were wrong in refusing to admit the heresy ascribed to Jansenius. He therefore went to Port-Royal with De P^refixe the Archbishop of Paris, and en- deavoured to persuade the nuns to subscribe the second condem- nation. Failing in this object, he wrote to them a long and elaborate letter, in which he endeavours not so much to prove the heresy of Jansenius, as the duty of submission to the autho- rity of the church and of the Holy See. This letter is a curious specimen of reasoning. It is full of illustrations from the history of the church, and exhibits its writer as a man able and earnest in controversy. At the same time it must be admitted that the principles laid down in this letter are such as none but those who are prepared to sacrifice their own reason and even conscience could be found to admit. There are passages which may be admirable as casuistry, but they utterly fail to convince such as are not prepared to go the lengths he went. No wonder that the simple-minded nuns held fast their resolution.

Q.

Papyri. — Tbe subject of ancient papyri is now of so mnch interest, that I Tentore to offer a few remarks on the manufacture of that material for writing. — ^The fibrous stem of the papyrus* plant was first cut into lengths of from eight to twelve inclies. These pieces were then sliced into slips of about one-eighth or one-tenth of an inch in thickness, and the outer skin, or bark, removed. A series of these slips was then laid side by side quite close together, and longi- tudinally, upon a smooth fijat stone ; over the lamina thus obtained, a second series of slips, likewise side by side and touching each other, were placed at right aneles to those beneath. The whole was finally covered with a flat, smooth stone or board, and kept under sufficient pressure till dry, the gum in the plant itself causing perfect cohesion, and likewise rendering the surface sufficiently hard and anabsorbent to bear out the ink or colour used by the scribe. The ver- tical slips differed from the longitudinal, inasmuch as a single length formed the entire width of the page or roll, whereas the longitudinal slips were continued to any length required for the roll or volume by being placed like the stones in a waU. It appears to have been the usual, if not invariable practice, to use the side of the vertical slips as the surface for writing upon, the reason for which is the facility afforded by the structure for rolling that side inwards, the verti^cal fibres compressing more easily than would the longitudinal. All papyri are thus formed, the fibrous laminiB intersecting each other at right angles, and hi no instance is any ancient writing on a single lamina of fibres. — Joseph Bomomi in the Parthenon.

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. V. D

( 84 ) [April,

NOTES OF A VISIT TO MALTA. By thb late Bey. John Chapman.

Saint Paul's Bay. — ^Tuesday, January 22, 1861, was a lovely morning, and so I proposed to my two companions, at Mrs. Lowers boarding house at Sliema, that we should embrace it to visit St. Paul's Bay. About ten, therefore, we sallied forth to obtain a spring car to convey us, and were very fortunate in meeting near our house the driver of whom we were in search, Paolo Zammut, one of the few Maltese who could be at all depended on. Paolo was an honest obliging fellow, who was for some time a servant at the college, whence I suppose it arose that he spoke English very fairly. Laying in then a small stock of sandwiches for ourselves, and provender for the horse, we set off about 10*30 in Paolo's car. But no one accustomed to an English car will at all imagine what our vehicle was like. I have been in English, Scotch, Irish, Welsh, Svdss, French cars, and those of half a dozen other countries, but a Maltese car (or go-cart as it is usually called) is unlike each and all, and yet it is the most simple of all, for it consists of nothing but a flat floor of the usual width, and about seven feet long, on two wheels. On this flat surface a carpet is spread, and on the carpet the traveller lies, sits, squats, in short, places himself in the least uncomfortable posture he can. About a third of the length from the front is a division about a foot high, and this serves as a pillow to the recumbent voyager, while the space before it serves as a seat for the driver when he is not running at the side. In order to accommodate three, one of our number had to share this front place with the driver, whilst I and another mounted up behind, and as there was a footstep we rode with our feet on that ; sitting as on the back seat of a dog- cart.

All being ready, then, we set off, and went up the hill on the Bircircara road, at the top of which we turned off to the right, and got into a narrow lane which I have often of late walked along, but which I found must be ridden along in a car if one would learn its miseries. Now, the ruts were in some parts at least a foot deep, worn into the soft rock by the continual traffic of stone-carts which constantly are passing along this way. These ruts were half filled with a light mud, and ever and anon our car would completely fall into one of them, sending a fountain of mud in every direction, and jolting us against the wheels which were just level with our shoulders, and therefore com- pletely 1)eplastering us. Fortunately, however, the mud was of

1863.] Notes of a Vmi to MaUa. 85

a ligbt sandy character, such as would soon brush off. After about a mile and a half of this we got into the Casal Nasciar road^ which was a very good one, and here we trotted on merrily. Passing through Casal Nasciar (which we ought not to have done, but to have left it on our left hand) we soon arrived at the chapel on Nasciar heights, from whence a lovely view — the best I should think in Malta, is obtained of St. Paul's Bay ; on the right, Citt& Vecchia perched up on its commanding eminence ; on the left, the beautiful valley and distant hills between the two, the island of Goro looming in the distance. One could not help picturing the great apostle journeying up that valley to ihm capital, and the residence of Publius, as it undoubtedly was at all events ofiScially. The bay now looked just at our feet as if we could run down to it in a few minutes, and yet it must be fivo miles from this spot. After stretching our legs and enjoying the prospect for a few minutes, we remounted our trap and began to descend into the valley. The hill by which we did so is cut in sig-zags, at every corner of which was a cross, or a figure of a saint, or some other object of or incentive to devotion. It is evidently a sort of via sacra, for our driver told us it is called the hill of God and Man. We had some nice views in descending, and on the left, about a mile off, saw the ravine, Uied-el-Asel, the rocky valley in which is the hermitage of St. Paul. Reaching the bottom of the valley our road lay for about three miles over an almost level plain, till we arrived at the margin of the bay, which we skirted till we almost reached the extremity, when we drew up at a small wine shop, a little beyond a fortified tower. Here we dismounted and walked round the head of the bay to explore. We could not help being struck with the fact how well this answers to the spot seen by the navigators of St. PauPs vessel, koKttov expvra ai/yuiKovy a creek with a shore. At its mouth the bay is fully two miles across, but gradually it tapers till it runs up into a comparatively narrow creek which terminates in a smooth sandy beach, just such as mariners in like circumstances would wish for to beach their vessel on. Returning to our small " asteria " we delayed the more intellectnal for the really more necessary exercise of feeding. This we did in a truly Oriental manner, for we adjourned to the top of the house, and choosing a nice sunny place sheltered from the wind, we produced our refreshment, which we partook of, after having, as one of my companions well observed, in imitation of the apostle, '^ given thanks to God.'' During our repast we were bargaining with a fisherman, through the medium of Paolo, for his boat to take us to the island Salmone. For this he asked four shillings, we offered him two shillings, which

D 2

86 Notes of a Visit to MaUa* [Apnl^

be eventually accepted^ and having washed down oar luncheon with a bottle of questionable Marsala^ soon after two we em- barked and pulled away to the island. Reaching it in a pull across of about a mile and a half we landed on its rough rocky shores^ and walked up to the highest pointy on which is a large figure of St. Paul preaching, standing on a high pedestal. The attitude is good and commanding, though it is a somewhat stereotyped one, as all over Malta one meets with figures of St. Paul preaching, and in them all the attitude is much alike. This colossal statue was erected here in 1845, chiefly at the in- stance of Signor Salvatore Borg, a gentleman connected with the chief secretary's department, and who himself contributed a large share of the fdnds. The island appears to be entirely a volcanic formation, and very ill able to support vegetation, yet, though for some few feet above the sea it is altogether barren, the higher ground produces some vegetation, and towards the top even the universal Maltese retaining walls have been con- structed to prevent what soil there is from being washed away. Near the statue is a small hut where, I presume, the cultivator lives. But before re-embarking let us endeavour, with the scene before us, to picture to ourselves, and if possible to get some in- formation respecting, the great event which about eighteen hundred years ago took place here, and has since made it so memorable a spot. Taking it then for granted that this was the real scene of the shipwreck, of which there can now be no reasonable doubt, let us just hastily trace the progress of the ship from Crete, the modern Candia. Whilst then the Alex- andrian ship was making for the sheltered port of Phenice on the west of that island, in order there to winter, as the season was now too far advanced for the navigators of those days, with their imperfect knowledge and appliances, to trust themselves to the storms, etc., of a Mediterranean winter, the great day of atonement, which took place in the month Tisri, October 10, " being already passed ;*' as then, they were sailing in a N.W. direction for their port with a light fair southerly breeze, and everything apparently so favourable that already it seemed as if the object of their hopes had been gained, suddenly there arose Kar avTff^ — against the island Crete, not against the ship (to ttXoujv), av€fio<; riHfxovuco^, a wind of a typhoon character, called Euroclydon. This hurricane was doubtless what is now called a Levanter by us, a '^ tiffone *' by the Italians, and is about the worst of all the squally winds for which the Mediterranean is so notorious. It varies from N.E. to E. and (according to a guide book I have before me) was on this occasion from E.N.E. ^ N. The ship now was blown out of her course, Svpofyjrcurdevro^ rou

1863.] Notes of a Visit to Malta. 37

vKouiVy she was taken aback^ and unable avro^aXfjueWj exactly our expression^ to luflf up into the eye of the wind. By the way, the word avroipdaX/neiv just reminds me that there is scarcely a boat or coasting-vessel belonging to Malta that has not an eye painted on each bow. The ship then was now '* up in the wind/' as we say^ and quite unmanageable, but happily^ as she was being blown to leeward, she drifted close by the small island Clauda, at the S.W. extremity of the coast, and, vvoSpafiovTe^, "running under'' the lee of this she got for a short time into a compara- tive calm, which was gladly embraced, for preparing for the dangers which evidently awaited them, and for making ''all snug/' The boat was over the ship's side afloat, this evidently betokening that they had so certainly reckoned on a short, fair weather passage, that they had not even used the ordinary pre- caution of taking the boat on board. This then had to be done, but it was a work of great difficulty (as it would be even now in a heavy sea). It was however accomplished, and then the secu- rity of the ship had to be looked to. She was a large vessel, and as all the early ships must have done, strained considerably. Their first care then was to resort to a practice, often adopted now in case of an old or heavily strained ship, to prevent her going to pieces, and called with us '' flapping," a practice which consists of passing one or more warps entirely round the vessel so as completely to bind her together. The vessel then was now prepc^red, as far as she could be, against the mere buffetting of the elements ; but now another danger awaited them. In the direction in which they were being blown, dead to leeward, S.W. from Crete off the coast of Africa, was the formidable Syrtis, a shoal or quicksand, which they might well dread as a lee shore. What then could they do to prevent this? Our translation says, " they strake sail and so were driven," an action which, as the words are understood by ninety-nine casual readers out of one hundred, would inevitably hurry them on to that very destruction which it was their object to escape if pos- sible. By strake sail, most readers would, and doubtless do, understand they lowered the sail altogether, and were driven on, unmanageable, right before the wind. That this would not have been the case needs not a moment's reflection. Doubtless XaKcuravTCf: does mean '' when they had lowered ;" thence arises whatever of difficulty there may be. Now at the risk of being tedious I purpose considering the force of the word here, be- cause though the facts of the case are well enough understood, I do not recollect ever having seen what appears to me the evident act implied by ;^a\. fully explained. I may just say here that I have been disappointed in procuring Messrs. Conybeare and

d8 Notes of a Virit to Malta. [April,

Howson's invaloable work^ but from a glance I took some time ago at that, I do not recollect that, minutely and correctly as they enter into all details, they fhlly explain the difficulty attend«> ing ;^aX. The only book I have at all to refer to, is a small locjEd guide which extracts Dr. Falconer's (of Bath) arguments in favour of Malta being the scene of the shipwreck, but does not attempt to explain any difficulty. Now, perhaps, the simplest way will be to ask what a ship now-a-days would do under like circumstances, and see if the analogy wUl help us. I think it will, for though '* the ship of Alexandria,^^ with its single mast and its huge aprefuov, or mainsail, spread on a proportionate unwieldly spar, did not in appearance much resemble a iulU rigged ship of the present day, yet each of these is, in its way, a square-rigged yessel, and, therefore, each must evidently have some practices which would naturally be resorted to under like circumstances. What then would a square-rigged ship do now- a-days to avoid a lee shore in a gale ? Now I think I can give something of a practical answer to this, which will enlighten us in the case before us. In November, 1848, 1 was coming home from the Mediterranean in a line of battle, ergo a square-rigged, ship. We were in the Bay of Biscay, when a gale came on against which it was impossible to beat up. What then did we for those six days (for it was even so, O horror) it lasted. The ship was laid to under close-reefed main topsail and storm jib. Now, ceteris paribus, just what H.M.S. '^ Superb " did in the Bay of Biscay in November, 1848, that did the ship of Alex* andria in October or November, about 58, she lay to under a close-reefed aprefuav. Now to explain : — To lay a ship to, is to bring her head as near as possible to the wind, and to keep it steadily there till the storm has blown itself out, so that the bow may receive all the shocks from the angry billows, that naturally being the part of the ship on which they can have the least in- fluence. In order then to do this, to keep the ship's head as near as possible " in the wind's eye/' the requisite saQ is set, in the case of a square sail, the yard is braced up as sharp as pos*- sible, — that is, as nearly parallel to wind as can be, — and the sail is just kept full. Now, to refer again to my illustration, in order to get to the explanation of x^X., and to shew that " lay- ing to " is implied by it, we were sailing in the usual manner when the gale came on, and in order to ^' lay to " the very pro- cess ;^a\. had to be gone through. Of course any large surface of canvass would soon be blown to ribbons in such a wind as we are now speaking of; therefore, '*to lay a ship to" involves reducing the sail to the smallest possible size, and to do this involves lowering the sail, in order to reef it, and even when it

1863.] Notet ^f a Vint to MaUa. 39

is again hoisted^ in the case of a close reef^ it is raised to only about half the height it was before. This then the mariners before us in all probability did^ they let down^ ro a-KCiw;, the huge mainsail with its heaTy yard and other gear^ not altogether as "strake sail'' would seem to imply^ but in order to reduce its size^ most probably by reefing. I say '' most probably '' but not certainly, £6r this may have been done in another way, which would even more necessarily require the yard, etc. (o-iceuo^), to be lowered, and I think my illustration particularly happy* because it gives an example of this also. I have said that when the g^e came on, as a part of the process of laying the ship to, both mainsail and jib had to be lowered in order to reduce their extent of surface. This was done as I have explained in the case of main^topsail by reefing it, a process which I suppose every one understands, but the jib was reduced not by reefing, but by substituting another for it. The fine weather sail was lowered altogether, of course unbent, from the halyard and replaced by a smaller and much stronger sail, expressly made for such an emergency as this, and hence called a storm jib. Our Alex- andrian mariners then lowered their cr/ie€t;o9> reduced the size of their apnrefKovy either by reefing or just possibly by substituting another for it. I suppose my excuse for being so tedious over this, must be the amusement that it has afforded myself, and really I never recollect having seen it fully explained. And now all being made snug, and the ship's head being doubtless brought as near to the wind as possible by the yard being braced sharp up outo)? €<pepovTo; "thus they were borne along/' — not dead before the wind, and right into the Syrtis, as they would inevitably have been had they had no sail whatever set, but just sideways as a vessel, laid to, drifts. By the way, I see the guide-book says, the ship was hove-to on the starboard tack, this was not correctly speaking the case; there is a difference between laying and heaving a ship to. Laid-to then on the starboard tack, with the wind between the E. and N.E., she would lie about seven points from the wind, and hence would drift in a westerly direction, making a little northing. In this way she was borne along no less than fourteen days, during which, in order to reduce the straining of the heavy-laden ship and to lighten her, all the ship's gear that was not absolutely necessary was thrown overboard. And among this atcevo^, if my second theory is correct, the huge aprcfioDy, and perhaps also the great yard on which it was spread, if it, as well as the sail itself (a by no means improbable supposition) had been replaced by a smaller and fitter one.

During this time, too, the only guides which thos^ early

40 Notes of a Visit to Malta. [April,

navigators had^ and from whence alone when oat of sight of land they could judge of their position and course^ the heavenly orbs^ were obscured from their sight; and^ ignorant of their position, drifting whither they knew not^ but expecting each hour to fall upon some lee shore where destruction would be in- evitable, no wonder in this anxious time of dreadful suspense they gave themselves up for lost ; and from despair and from inability in their present miserable condition, with every sea doubtless sweeping over the fated ship, to get to, or to dress, their accustomed food, they at least had no regular meal, so that though actually each cared enough for himself to keep, as we say, body and soul together, as St. Paul says (verse 38) for four- teen days they fasted and ate nothing. -But in the midst of this scene of despair there is, at least, one on whom it preys not. One in that storm-lashed ship knows full well who is He that holdeth the water in the hollow of His fist; aye, and He too knows that there is one of His faithful ones, and in this moment of trial and danger the great apostle is cheered by a messenger from the Almighty himself; and now, assured by the message received in the black, stormy, midnight, in the midst of those raging billows he can feel a safety and assurance of protection unknown to others even in the calmest day on shore, or in the quiet house, or in any other circumstance or position that seema the Airthest removed from aught like danger. But the apostle will not be assured of safety without endeavouring to impart it to his companions ; and so this dreary interval of drifting wit- nesses him narrating to the crew the events of that night, — the assurance of safety and the prophetic description of the fate of the ship, their own escape to a man, and the place and manner thereof. Day after day then the ship drifted in Adria (the name by which the whole of that part of the Mediterranean which lies between Greece, Italy, and Africa, was called), when on the fourteenth night, probably guided by the sound of distant breakers, the mariners supposed they were nearing some land, and to assure themselves on this important point they resorted to the natural practice of sounding the depth of water they were in; the result of which gave them twenty fathoms; shortly after soundings were again taken, when five fathoms less was the result ; and now, assured that soon they would drift ashore, and unable from the darkness of the night to see the kind of coast which lay before them, or whether there was any refuge of which they might avail themselves, their only hope of safety lay in securing the ship where she then was till the dawn. For this purpose they anchored the ship by the stem, a position in this case of singular advantage over our customary practice of anchor-

1863.] Note» of a Virii to Malta. 41

ing by the bow^ as it enabled them to bring her up in the posi- tion she already was, and especially it kept her head towards the shore^ so that, should they see a likely place to reach when the morning dawned^ they would be able at once to run in for it straight^ without wearing or putting her in any difficult position. I may mention here two arguments which strongly favour this as the true scene.

I. The distance from Clauda to Punta Kaura at the east extremity of the bay is 476 miles ; and supposing the ship to drift thirty-six miles a day^ this would be just the distance passed over. II. The soundings here given, twenty and fifteen &thom8, are said just to correspond with those a short distance from the entrance into St. PauFs Bay. The ship then was retained in this position by a^xvpa^ reaaapa^, either ^'four anchors/' or possibly a four-fluked anchor or grapnel. Every- thing now, humanly speaking, depended upon this anchor hold- ing, and providentially it did so. Doubtless the construction of the ship was in favour of this ; and here she had an advantage over our modern vessels, as the stern diminishing to a point, in the same manner aa the stem would serve to turn aside and break the waves which struck her, and thus offer less resistance. Here again our Maltese boats may help to illustrate : they all, as well as the coasting vessels, being almost alike at stem and stem, and rising up to a high point. But now, faithless in St. PauPs assurance of safety, and notwithstanding their present hopeful position, the crew think to try the risk of getting ashore in the boat, and to this end, launch her boat over the side and prepare to get into her, on pretence of getting another anchor out from the bow; an action which, if really intended, would evidently have been most unwise. One cannot help being struck with these men's cowardice; they who ought to have been the last to leave the ship, are ready to leave the landsmen to their fate in order to secure their own safety. But though the military officer does not appear to see through their design, the apostle, calm and collected, does ; and though he knows of his safety as certainly as if he were already ashore, yet he is not one who talks of trusting to Providence without using all neces- sary means; and he sees that when the dawn brings the time for active exertion, without the ship's company they will of course be unable to perform the requisite seamanship for navigating the ship. At once then he represents this to the military officer, who issues the command that the boat should be cut adrift so as entirely to defeat the purpose of the men.

And now, during the interval in which they are awaiting the return of daylight, encouraged by the words of the apostle, and

42 Noie9 of a Visit to Malta. [April,

by his example, they, for the first time daring the last fourteen days, partake of something like a regular meal; after which, in order to lighten the ship, so that when the time for action should arrive she might be in better trim, and therefore more entirely under control, for whatever exigency might arise, they cast the cargo, or what remained of it, into the sea. This done, soon the anxiously-looked for daylight would arrive ; the dawn begins to break, the dim outline of the coast gradually becomes more atid more distinct. Is there nothing but rocks there to leeward on which the ship, humanly speaking, must inevitably be dashed to pieces, or is there some shelter under which they may possibly run? Shortly, however, the suspense is over, the light breaks fully forth and reveals to the anxious crew a coast with which all of them were unfamiliar, but in which they see '^ a certain creek with a shore,^^ into which if they can possibly run the ship they are safe. To do this then was now the object oi their desire, though it is evident from the wording ^^ efiovXeva-avrOy e i SvvacvTo" (they desired, if it should be possible,) that there was a good deal of difSculty attending it, so much so, as to render the attainment of their desire very doubtful, and, as the sequel evidently shews, they were defeated in it. As for the reason of thQ difficulty that seems very apparent. The creek was too much in the direction of the wind to allow the ship to lie up into it. If the wind continued quite steady and all was favourable she might just do it, but it was a matter of great question. At all events it must be tried, and so the anchors were weighed, afia aveine: ra^ ^ev/erfipta^ rtov irtfSaXuov, the yokings of the rudders were loosed, that is, the lashings by which the two great oars, one on each side, by which the ship was steered, were secured, were cast loose; the apT€/jux)v (making it probable that before it was only reefed, not shifted) was hoisted and adapted so as to catch the wind (177 irveovajf), i. e., probably braced up ; and the ship was steering for the creek with the shore, 6t9 rov aiyiaXov, when suddenly their hope of reach- ing this was defeated by their {irepcireaovre^ €t9 rvirov hi,0aKaatrov) ''falling into a place where two seas met,^' according to the A. y. ; if so, by their falling into the eddy in the narrow strait between Salmonetta and the mainland, and not in the direction of the true wind. This caused them, in the exigency of the moment, to run the ship stem on to the first likely place, which is that now pointed out as the scene. This supposition would of course make the small strait between the island Sal- monetta and the coast the rom-o^ Bid. — the two seas — from the bay side and from the west, converging there ; but there is a much more probable supposition. In this case, if the ship had

1863.] Natei qf a Vint to MaUa. 48

beea mn cm to the main coast, some^ if not all, would hare been able to get at once ashore by climbing over the ship's bows, especially when we consider how firmly they were imbedded, whereas the description of the escape, etc., plainly implies that there was a considerable distance of sea between the stranded ship and the island coast, just snch as would be the case were a ▼end to ran on a shoal a little way from the land ; and this doubdess was the case : hifitCKnuraof:, like ** bimaris,'' is applied to any ground between two seas, such as an isthmus, and in all probability roir. hid. means " a place between two seas,'' that is, a shoal or sand-bank, formed by, or at least at, two currents. The ship then, according to this more probable sup- position, was steering for the sandy beach at the head of the hay where we were recently walking, when she drifted to a shoal possibly stretching from the island to the main coast, and now the only plan was to run on to this shoal, which the crew did on the exigency of the moment, and with such force as to drive her bow high and dry, while the stem being fully exposed to the raging surf was soon broken up. It is evident that there was an interval of sea between the ship and the shore, from the soldiers' cruel counsel, and from the manner of the escape of all, and this interval must have been one of comparative calm, just soch as would exist under the lee of a shoal, as none could have swum in the open sea as it was then raging.

Re-embarking in our boat a fair wind soon carried us back across the bay, and mounting our vehicle we were soon on our way homewards. We returned through Mosta, thus avoiding any great hiU, and reached home about half-past five.

Excurnon to Cittd Vecckia and Boschetio. — On Tuesday, February 5th, we found Paolo's car again waiting for us, agree- ably to appointment, at ten, ready to drive us to Citta Notabile or Vecchia, the former capital of the island, and Boschetto, "the little wood," a public garden about two miles beyond. Our party was the same as before, and all being ready soon after ten we set off, on a lovely warm morning, with mutual good wishes for pleasure and profit. Our road lay through the large and populous Casal of Bircircara, with its fine Catholic-like diurdi. Indeed, it is more than half a Catholic, for not only is it exceedingly like, though superior to, Cittft Vecchia in external appearance, but also it, together with St. Paul's in Yaletta, and the towns Jenglea, Cospicua, and Yittoriosa, on the water, is served by canons who, also by various popes, have been allowed certain privileges, such as the use of a particular golden cross. Leaving Bir our road lay past the famous St. Antonio gardens, and through C. Attard, which the guide-book describes as

I

44 Notes of a Visit to Malta, [Aprils

having a good churchy though externally it certainly is not pre- possessing. From hence our road was a continuous ascent which soon gave us the advantage, riding backwards as we were^ of a very extensive view. This was especially the case for the last quarter of a mile or so ; the road rising up very steeply to the city and affording us a prospect^ on the left of the country about Mosta with the sea near St. PauPs Bay^ and Nasciar on its commanding height; while immediately before us was Valletta and its harbours, with the fine deep blue sea far above and beyond, the intervening space being filled up with the large Casals through which we had passed, and two or three others near^ giving an animated idea of population and life to the scene. Presently after passing two such erections, by no means devoid of architectural taste (the first a sort of little temple, in which the process of washing was being busily carried on^ the other a 'fountain by the roadside), we turned sharp off to the right, and after crossing a small plain, and traversing the moat by which the city is surrounded towards the west, we passed through the city-wall by a very elegant gateway (of which, I am sorry to say, I failed to obtain a sketch) . '

CittA Vecchia " the old city,^' or, as it is often called, Not- abile, the *' famous '^ or "principal'^ city, was formerly the capital of the island, as it is now to some extent ; ecclesiastically for instance. It used to be called by the same name as the island Melita. Here the inauguration of the grand masters took place. Here in the present day the consecration of the bishops takes place. By the way, on a previous visit to Malta in 1847, a bishop was consecrated, on which occasion he rode round the church on a white horse, shod with silver shoes. I learned that this bishop is still alive, though he has since resigned, and was succeeded by the present prelate about five years ago. The city is strongly fortified, being entirely surrounded by fortifications, and, where the country is on a level, by a deep moat. It how- ever stands on the brow of a precipitous hill, so as to be on the verge of a deep valley on fully two sides. On entering the city our first visit was naturally to the cathedral, which, however, we found shut, and were told that by the bishop^s instructions we could not obtain the key without permission: after this one would almost feel reconciled to the usages in our own cathedrals. On my applying at the house of one of the canons, who lived in the Cathedral Square, this permission was readily granted, and soon the key-bearer was summoned. He led us in by way of the sacristy, where were a few paintings and a very handsome blue embroidered vestment, which I noticed. Here also, in a closet, are kept the silver figures of the apostles, which were taken by

1863.] Notes of a Visit to Malta. 45

Napoleon, bat to see these required a special order. The gates between the sacristy and the charch are of very beautiixd ancient canred wood, representing various animals, etc. They were in, what our guide called, the ante-church, that is, the older building which occupied this site. On entering the church one could not but be struck by the good and rich effect of the whole, which is principally given by the elaborate painting of the entire ceiling, etc., and the rich gilding by which this is decorated, and the colamns, capitals, etc., relieved. The universal classic style and arrangements are here adopted, mz,y externally a dome and two west towers (there are, however, some few exceptions to this latter, as at Casals Balsam and Attard, where the tower or towers are at the end of the transepts) ; internally the high altar under the dome, with a handsome marble reredos behind it, and a canopy suspended over. To the east (that is architecturally speaking, though not really) of this the choir, with the lady altar against the east wall. Where we put brasses or simple carved stones, in Malta, they put marble mosaics, which are often very beautiful. In the centre of the nave we remarked a large group of these, chiefly in memory of dignitaries of this cathedral. Some were of quite recent date. The ceiling above was painted by Giovanni Oalbia (?), and is of some age. The painting of the dome is quite recent, having been finished only about six months. It was executed by a Roman artist, Yinclazo Malo. The former painting was so much injured by the earth- quake of 1856 as to require this. The domed ceiling of the Apse depicts the shipwreck of St. Paul. Quite at the top of this, surmounting all, is a representation, unhappily far too common in Roman Catholic countries, of the First Person of the ever Adorable Trinity. He is as usual depicted as an old man. Above him is the dome. Profane and awful as this how- ever is, it seems almost small in comparison of a blasphemy which I heard of the other day as being perpetrated in another Boman Catholic country, Portugal. The subject of the altar- piece is the conversion of St. Paul j in it the apostle is repre- sented lying flat on his back. Both these works are old, having been also in the ante-church. Over the lady altar is a small but very beautiful "Mater Dolorosa,'' by Giulio Romano. In the choir we were shewn a large massive silver crucifix which belonged to the first grand master, and has his arms engraven upon it. In front of the high altar we noticed a very splendid altar-frontal of gold and embroidered silver on velvet. Leaving the choir, we went into the chapel of Christ crucified, that on the right side of the altar. Immediately on entering we were painfully struck by a crucifix over the altar of about half-life

46 Notes of a Visit to Malta. [April;

size, in which the physical sufferings of our blessed Lord are shewn with awful distinctness^ the protuberent bones^ the stream- ing blood, and the expression of pain on the countenance^ giring an effect of terrible vividness. Does not the Church of Bome^ in this and in ten thousand other instances^ shew that she passes over the spiritual for actual physical? Is not much of her teaching just in accordance with this ? Or can it truly be said that this contemplation of the actual leads to that of the higher? For instance when looking on such an exhibition of anguish as this, will not the spectator be led to reflect that this was endured for him, and for his sins, hence to see the evil of sin, and his sins, and the love of a Saviour? Undoubtedly this was the original and the good intention; whether the intention is realized may certainly at least admit of a doubt. By the way, what error of the Church of Rome or of the Greek Church, etc., may not be traced back to a ffood intention ? Oladly we turned from this figure to a very interesting Byzantine picture of 'St. Paul, with the sword in his hand. Like all those of this class, the face and hands only are painted, the drapery, etc., being wrought in silver. I believe this style of decoration originated with the wish of the Greek Church to satisfy that apparently inherent desire there is in man, to introduce some form of image in his worship. Images being forbidden in the Eastern Church these pictures formed a sort of compromise, as they still could be called pictures, whilst they also allowed of any amount of costly decoration. Our cicerone got us a light to examine the face of this figure, which we then saw to be most exquisitely painted. Against each of the two first pillars from the grand altar, is a handsome chair under a canopy. That on the right, the epistle side, is the cathedra for the bishop; that on the gospel side is for our Most Gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria. Our cicerone, a very decent fellow, told us with some glee that the Queen Dowager had been into the church. On each side of the choir, let into the wall, about half way up, facing west, is as usual an organ. The cathedral is well-placed just on the verge of the hill. It occupies the traditional site of the residence of the Roman praetor, Publius. The city is said to have been founded 1804 b.c. (f). Leaving the cathedral we now also left the city, noticing on our way the fine building just within the gate, now used as the military sanitarium, and drove to the suburb Rabato. Here we drew up at the church of St. Paul, and our guide having summoned the attendant priest (by no means a captivating young man), we passed into the church, in the nave of which was a staircase leading down to the object of our visit, " St. Paul's Cave/' Gt>ing down these

1868.] Notes of a VisU to MaUa. 47

stairs oar sacerdotal friend lighted a long thin taper^ and gave us each a similar one, and soon we were in the grotto. It is a cave in the rock, circular in form, about eight feet high and thirty-six across. The rock in which it is formed, owing to the particular sanctity of the place, is of so wonderful a character, that however much it should be quarried awaj, the dimensions would remain the same. This, it is said, the Maltese believe most firmly. In the centre is a very good marble statue of the saint. Here we are to believe the apostle took up his abode during his sojourn in Melita, not of course from necessity, but from humility, and as our showman-priest told us, for ^'penance.'' In a rocky chapel at the side was a figure of Christ being scourged, said to be three hundred and fifty years old. There was also an old figure of St. Luke who, with Trophimus, was St. Paul's com- panion on the voyage there. Here a priest's coffin was laid surrounded with candles, not burning. Hence we walked a little distance to the catacombs, our priestly guide still being our showman. Entering a doorway on the street, we descended a flight of about three steps, at the foot of which, creeping in at a low entrance for some few feet, we found ourselves in a labyrinth of narrow passages ; at intervals are arched niches, in which are the sarcophagi, which are simply receptacles hewn out of the live rock. Most we saw are parallel to the passages, some how- ever are hewn at right angles. They are of all sizes, from the largest adult to the smallest infant ; and I noticed one for the fether and mother, with a little receptacle for the child at the side. In the niches is a small receptacle for a lamp ; these have the black from the oil smoke still remaining. What ancient soot ! These catacombs are immense in extent ; one passage we were tdd led to Boschetto, two miles off; one to the Grand Harbour, which must be at least five miles. In this a master and his pupils were lost some years ago, since which most of them have been blocked up. We came to one very considerable hall, with columns to support the roof. This our guide said was used as a chapel, when the natives resorted to these subterranean passages to escape the incursions of the Arabs from the Barbary coast. These natives my guide called Serracin (phonetically Serracheen), a word with which I do not remember to be acquainted. The Arab conquest of the island was about a.d. 870. The catacombs are probably of Fhoenician or Roman origin. There are other excavations of a similar character in another part of CittA Vecchia.

We gave our cleric a shilling, and then remounted our car and drove on to Boschetto, about two miles off. The ride was very pretty. We passed a large convent of St. Domingo on the

48 Notes of a Vmt to Matta. [April,

left, into the cloisters of which I just peeped on returning, but saw nothing to invite a further exploration. About a mile and a half on we came to a very pretty valley, on the edge of which, on our left, was a lai^ building, which I at once recognized as the Inquisitor's palace. This now belongs to our government, and is part of the Boschetto property. It is well situated, and commands for Malta a lovely view. As we were descending the hill into the valley, at the bottom of which lies Boschetto, the little wood, our driver, Paolo, told us of his great desire to go to England, which he thought he should gratify some day, though his wife and friends protested against it. In connexion with this he supposed that there were no such hills and valleys in England as that now before us. Where can he have got his ideas of our lovely island home from, than which, to take it all in all, I speak and think without prejudice, no land in the world is more beautiful ? I have not, truly, seen every land, but I have seen enough to be a tolerable judge of what other lands are. What country for instance can produce a walk over the green fields such as England can ? Boschetto we found rather a failure. " This delightful public garden, watered by numerous canals,^' etc., we found to be simply a large orange orchard, very neg- lected; and the numerous canals, some water running along a stone trough. The oranges, however, being of the bitter kind — Seville, for marmalade, — arc much lajer than the sweet, and were, therefore, still bending down the boughs with their golden load ; so that altogether it was no unenjoyable exercise to demolish our cold chicken under their shade, especially in such a land as this, where the sight of a tree is a rarity. Our thirst we duly quenched at " the fine fountain in the commodious arti- ficial grotto,^' a structure which would prove a great acquisition to the proprietor of any Cockney tea-gardens. From the gardens I walked to the top of the hill, sketching the palace on the way. At the top the car came up, and we all drove homewards. We did not pass through Rabato or Citt& Vecchia, but just skirted them. In descending the hill I got a sketch of the cathedral, from the car, as it looks so very well placed, crowning the top of the hill, and towering above the strong fortifications by which the hill sides are walled in. A little further on the large lunatic asylum lay to our right. On reaching the gardens of St. Antonio, as we had plenty of time, we just walked in, as Mr. H. had not before seen them. These, as I said on my visit in December, now belong to the government, and the adjoining palace is the governor's summer residence. They are far superior to Boschetto, as they contain a great variety of trees, etc., and they contain several ornamental ponds with gold-fish, fountains, etc. They

1B6S.1 Notes on a Visii to Malta. 49

aie, liowever, laid out in the strictly formal taste of the place^ stone walks intersecting at right angles. At the bottom is a tower^ firom whence I counted five large populous Casals near, each with its large parish church (exemplifying^ what I have before remarked on^ the prominence given to the house of God) towering over the houses of the people, — Lia Balsan, Nasdar, Gargur, Bircircara, Attard^ besides CittA Vecchia and many others in the distance. The view from this tower certainly conveys the impression that the island is by no means unin- habited. Again mounting our chariot, we were soon in Bir- circara, and soon again after that, about five, were at the door of our sojourning place, our mutual good wishes having been fully realized.

The Earthquakes. — Saturday, February 9, was to me a me- morable day. I know not whether I was asleep beforehand, and was awakened by the earlier symptoms, or whether I was already awake; but soon after 12*30, in the early morning of that day, I became sensible of a peculiar rumbling noise beneath, together with a convulsive shaking of the house, which soon increased to a sensible rocking of the whole house, and of course the room and bed, and everything else in it. I at once knew it was an earthquake, and some degree of alarm I certainly felt, as it seemed as if the house must be shaken to pieces, or at least that the flags from the roof would fall in, and this of course must have resulted had the quaking been much more violent or long continued. Providentially, however, the rocking soon ceased, and gradually the rumbling and the shaking subsided, though I fimcied I felt it for some time ; and after I had again composed myself to sleep, on awaking again some time later, I felt most sensibly a second shock, though not nearly so violent as the first. On discussing the matter in the morning, we supposed that the violent rocking lasted about half a minute. The sound and sensation was very like that which is felt in a house built over a railway tunnel when a heavily laden train is passing* under; this of course increased a hundredfold. One of my. companions had a key he had hung up shaken off its hook. In a neighbouring house some bottles and a jug were thrown down; ricketty walls fell, and disagreeable cracks were made in several houses in Valletta, but I believe no real damage was done. Our house here would, humanly speaking, resist a pretty heavy shock, and the walls are thick ; it is only two stories high, and stands cm a considerable area. Indeed, all the houses are built, or at all events ought to be, with a view to these convulsions ; not, indeed, that they are so frequent in Malta as they are else- where. In the harbours it was sensibly felt. In this, the

NBW SBBIES. VOL. III., NO. V. E

50 Notes on a Visit to Malta. [April/

Quarantine^ the water is said to have risen somewhat ; and on board the ships they describe the sensation as similar to that of the anchor being " let go/^ The last earthquke was in October, 1856: that did a considerable amount of damage: that was very violent at Rhodes ; and it was supposed that this came from the same direction (as we found afterwards it did) as it was felt but slightly in Sicily and that direction.

The following morning we heard that great alarm was felt in Valetta. Numbers rushed into the streets in their night-dresses, and many refused to return to their houses, remaining in tbe streets and open places all night. The church bells tolled for service (these I heard as I lay awake), flocks resorted thither; the bishop (R. C.\ setting the example, and ofSciating at St. Paul's (R. C). Directly I heard of this I remarked on its inex- pediency, and since find at least one of the papers (the Malta Times) quite coinciding with my own expressed opinion. ''With every respect for the motive of such a proceeding,^' says that paper, ''we cannot help observing, that it is one above all others, at such a moment, fraught with danger to human life. In illus- tration of this, it is only necessary to allude to what took place at Lisbon, when that city was destroyed by earthquake in 1755, and thirty thousand persons killed, chiefly owing to their being congregated at the time in vast numbers inside the churches.^'

The R. C. Bishop seems to have been a good deal afiected by this event, and looked upon it as a sort of ante-judgment against the coming frivolities of the carnival. One of its amusements, called the " parata,'' he succeeded in getting set aside, himself reimbursing the money which had been expended in preparation. The carnival was said to have been very dull, except on Shrove Tuesday. The shock, or the accompanying condition of the elements, has had considerable influence both on men and animals. Not a few were at the time seized with nausea and vomiting, and the doctors say they have since been fully occupied. An Australian emeu, belonging to the Royal Artillery at Fort Tigre, has since been very unwell.*

• We are indebted for the previous extract, to an unpublished journal of a visit to Malta and the East, by the late lamented Rev. John Chapman. — Ed. J. S. L.

1863.] ( 51 )

BENAN :-LES HISTORIENS GBITIQUES DE JESUS.

EvEBY one is acquainted with the change of attitude towards the Christian religion which marks the greater part of those who have written against it of late years. Scorn and ridicule, as well as bitter hostility^ have been exchanged for a respectful and sympathizing tone. Sut though this is in many ways a gain^ it is apt to embarrass the minds of believers in Christianity. They find many of their views and feelings expressed with warmth and eloquence by men whose conclusions startle them on other points. Where are they to part company from those with whom they have so much in common ? The question does not affect simple-minded persons with strong religious convic- tions ; but it often produces a state of doubt and indecision in those who^ though persuaded of the truth of their religion, are at the same time attracted to the discussion of what belongs to it. It is the intention of this paper to aid persons of this kind in seeing the real difference of principle between themselves and the sceptical writers of the present day.

We have taken M. Benan as a representative of the latter class, partly on account of his elevated views, his high apprecia- tion of Christianity, and his freedom from hostility, to which, as well as to his learning and charming style, justice was done in a late number of this Journal,' and partly because of the absence of all reserve in the expression of his opinions. We shall first state his views on the supernatural or miraculous ele- ment in religion and the teaching of Christ, and then notice his account of the supernatural feature in the narrative of the

Gospels, referring throughout to his Etudes (PHistoire Religieuse,

and in particular to the essay entitled Les Historiens Critiques de Jesus. And we shall in each case add some of the reflections which will readily occur to a thoughtful Christian in support of his own convictions.

I. Benan explicitly denies the existence of the supernatural. The first principle of criticism is, he says, that the miracle has no place in human matters any more than in nature. The con- sequence of this is, as he rightly states, that there can be no discussion between the high philosophical school and theologians, since th^y have no common ground to meet on.* This view, which is expressed with the greatest decision, is directly con- nected with his denial of God's personality. He often uses the name of God and the word " divine,'^ and speaks of the neces-

• October, 1862. * Preface, p. vii., cf. pp. ix., 206.

E 2

62 Renan c-^Les Histories Critiques de J(9us. [April,

sitv which the human heart feels to believe and adore. He would not for a moment disturb the faith of those whose wants are met by religion in its common forms/ The philosopher has also his worship of Ood^ but in the way of a transcendental rationalism i its object is the ideal in morals and aesthetics. No other meaning can be put upon the passage quoted in the note.^ But if there is no power to interfere from without in human development^ neither is it needed. The mind of man has powers of spontaneous creation which are hidden from those whose view is restricted by the narrow bounds of common sense.' Christ himself^ the highest form of the highest life of man, was merely human. It shews an ignorance of what humanity is capable of to look upon him as divine in the orthodox sense. We must look to man's nature alone for all the phenomena which history records, and welcome them all. Not only do we behold what is thoroughly human in the Greek conception of life; but the doctrine of the cross which was folly to the Greeks, equally pror ceeds from human nature.' Humanity has created Christianity. Humanity has done all, and done all well/ Evil does indeed exist ; but the heart of man is the only source of it, as it is of good.^ Human nature is indeed always beautiful, but not always equally so.* But the evil which is mixed up with good in the actual, must be left out of sight when we contemplate 'humanity. She is the impeccable. Stain attaches only to the individual, and not to the species and its history.^ It can

* pp. xvi., xvii.

' ** A ceoz qui, Be pla^ant an point de vue de la sabBtanoe, me demande- ront : ce Dien eBt-il ou n'est il pas? Oh I Diea I r6pondrai-je, c'eat loi qui est, et toat le reste qaiparait dtre. Sopposd mdme aoe, poor nouB philosopneB, nn aatre mot fdt preferable, oatre que leB mota abstraiis n'ezpriment pas asses clairement la r^elle existenoe, il j aurait an immense inoony^nient a nous conper ainsi tontes les sonrces po6tiques da pass6, et a noas s^parer par notre langage des simples qai adorent si bien k leur manidre. Le mot Dieu 6tant en possession des respects de I'hamanit^, ce mot ayant pour lai ane longae pre- scription et ayant €X€ employ^ dans les belles poesies, ce serait renverser tontes les nabitades da langase que de Tabandonner. Dites aux simples de Tivre d'aspiration k la v^rite, a la oeaut^, k la bont^ morale, ces mots n'anront poar eax aacon sens. Dites-lear d'aimer Diea, de ne pas offenser Diea, Us voas ooraprendront k manreille. Diea, Proridence, immortality, aatant de bons vieox mots, an pea loards peat-dtre, qae la pbilosophie inter^r^tera dans des sens de plas en plas raffln^s, mais qa*elle ne remplacera jamais avec avantage. Sons ane forme on soas ane aatre, Diea sera toujours le r^sam^ de nos besoins supra- sensibles, la eaUgorie de PicUai (c'est-i-dire les formes sous lesqueUes noas oon- cevons Tid^al), comme I'espace et le temps sont les caUgories des oorps (o'est-i- dire les formes sous lesquelles nous concevons les corps). En d'autres termes, Phomme plac^ derant les cboses belles, bonnes, ou Traies, sort de lui*mSme, et, snspendu par un charme celeste, an^antit sa oh^tive personnalit^, s'exalte, s'absorbe. Qu'est que cela, si ce n'est adorer?" — ^p. 419.

' p. 198, 199. • p. 418. / p. 416.

« p. 429. » p. 295. < p. 129.

186 3.] Renan : — Les Historiens Critiques de JUus. 58

hardly be nnfair to infer from language of this kind that Renan also rejects the belief in human responsibility^ since man has no superior but the ideal^ which is abstract and impersonal. At least no auch view meets us in his writings. It is needless to say that there is no trace in them of the idea of sin.

Kenan therefore occupies the same argumentative ground with reference to the supernatural as Hume^ although he feels very differently towards religion. The readers of Paley will recollect that Hume denied the possibility of miracles, and re- fused to enter upon the question of the evidence of Christianity, since it could be pronounced beforehand to be without weight bom the very fact of claiming to be miraculous. Paley replied that this ^' praejudication'^ was only consistent with the denial of Grod's existence. If He exists a revelation is possible ; and if it be granted us it must come in a miraculous manner, t . e., as something not simply natural and human. The question therefore is whether it is needed. And if the want be only enough to make it not improbable that God would give a reve- lation, we are warranted to proceed in asking whether it has actually been given, which is a question that must be decided by testimony. The same answer may be made to Renan. He would of course object to the expectation of any revelation at all. He recognizes no source from which it could receive that character, nor any other wants on our part than those which are satisfied in the spectacle of sublime morality in Jesus. But we may ask the Christian whether he feels that this is all which man needed — whether the perfection of Jesus is enough of itself to reassure the heart which has been convinced of sin, or rather might not increase its terror — whether men needed no recon- ciliation with God — and whether the question of our future life did not require an authoritative settlement, which can only be found in our Lord's resurrection ?

We cannot enter upon the discussion of the evidence of the supernatural in the life of Christ. This is done in the well- known treatises on the subjects' And the weight of their whole argument is so great that no one would be unconvinced, if the possibility of the supernatural were once fairly admitted. But it may not be out of place to draw attention to a point connected with our Lord's miracles, which is often not brought out with sufficient prominence. They are not merely external evidence, bat they have a peculiar nature, as being, in fact, specimens and instances of the truth which they establish. Our Lord's

J One of the best of those is Archbishop Whately's Introductory Lessons on Ckri$UaH JSvidences. Its unpretending form is probably the chief reason of itA not being so well known as it deserves.

54 Benan : — Lcm Hisioriens Criiiques de Jisus. [April,

resarrection is not onl; a proof of His divine power and authority because of the fulfilment of the sign which He Himself appointed, we need not think of it simply in an i^logetic point of view ; it is the great typical and efficacioas instance of Resurrection, solving the problem in which every one has so deep an interest. And when we see Him working miracles, not for the purpose of convincing in the way in which they are now rightly enough used by apologists, but as the manifesting of the divine power and life within Him ; producing conviction indeed, yet not one merely logical, but rather a sense of being in the presence of one who has displayed His divine origin : then we see the victory of spirit over nature and of holiness and divine life over sin, and we feel that the more we are united to Christ the higher we rise above the outward terrors of sin and death. Thus the miracles do not stand isolated and disjoined from human consciousness, and the Christian can never consent to the view which regards them as imaginary violations of an uniformity far more beau- tiful than any interruptions of it could ever be. No doubt it is best that the Christian church should not have the power of working miracles, and that nature has recovered her position relatively to man. But it is also best that the Churches founder has established once for all the dominion of the spiritual over the natural.

II. As to Benan's views about our Lord^s nature and teach- ing the following passage will give a clearer notion in addition to what we have already said. '^ So long as one noble heart shall aspire to moral beauty, so long as one elevated soul shall tremble with joy in the presence of the realization of the divine, the Christ will have those who will adore him on the truly im- mortal side of his being. For let us not deceive ourselves, and extend the limits of the imperishable too far. Even in the Christ of the Gospel a part will die — the local and national form, the Jew, the Galilean. But a part will remain, the great Master of Morals, the persecuted Just One, he who has said to man " We are sons of the same heavenly Father.^' The worker of miracles and the prophet will die. The man and the sage will remain ; or rather, the eternal beauty will live for ever in that sublime name, as in all those which humanity has chosen in order to recall to herself what she is, and to intoxicate herself with her own image. There is the living God. That is he whom we must adore.*'* By saying that the Jew and Galilean will disappear, he seems to refer to the conviction of a personal God, Providence, and Sin, which is implied in all our Lord's

* p. 215.

1868.] Benan : — LfCS Hisiorien$ Critiques de Jisus. 66

teachings but wliioh was no novelty^ and belonged to eyery Jew.

But we must notice that what is thus rqected is not some few points of our Lord's teachings but its whole groundwork^ a set of principles as comprehensive as any can be. And they were those of a whole nation with a very remarkable history. And the defence and propagation of a portion of them was the work^ to use the language of Benan^ which that nation had to perform for humanity. Its Monotheism^ it is said^ which it handed on to the Christian Church has driven away Polytheism from the most gifted parts of the worlds and has made a very high notion of God universal among them. But if so^ is there not some reason to respect those other beliefs which were joined with that of Monotheism^ and which Christianity has equally inherited? They are also inseparable from the originality of our Lord's teaching. Of course it is impossible to separate them from it historically. Our Lord^ as a matter of fact, did not teach merely an exalted morality^ but a religious morality. His teaching was completely moral, but it was crowned by devotion. If we say that the morsd is the valuable part, and the religious is due to the prejudices of the nation, we set ourselves against His teaching, and take away all that gave it distinctiveness and suc- cess. Why should it have had more power than the teaching of Socrates ? Because it was not a philosophy, but a religion. It awoke the sense of sin, and taught man to rest in God, and to glory in the cross. It is in the cross, after all, that the secret of the success of the Gospel lies. Its teaching goes straight to the inmost coiisciousness of a corrupt nature. Again, they are im- plied in His own declarations about Himself, and His relation to the Father and to us. He was Himself, according to His own words, the highest declaration of the supernatural. He was the revelation of the Father; and to us He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Now, if He stand at the head of the whole race of man in moral wisdom and holiness, is it not arbitrary rashness to say that in spite of this He was under a delusion when He came to the suhgect of religion ? He never viewed morals and religion apaii;. And if He said that the things which He spake were what He heard from the Father, which of us is in a position to question it? What man can gain a point of view high enough to criticize the words of Jesus ? '^ Though I bear re- cord of myself, my record is true, for I know whence I came and whither I go.'^ How hollow does this sound if it only means that He derived His eminence above other men from His sense of the ideal, and that this was the aim to which He was ever tending ! And we must agree with Lessing that '* if Jesus

56 Renan : — Les Historiena Critiqt$es de J4sus. [Aprfl^

were not God then were Mahometanism an improvement on Christianity, since Mahomet has carefully abstained from giving occasion to that idolatry which on this hypothesis the words of Jesus provoke/'^ And lastly, these convictions, together with the way in which they are met by Christianity alone, take in all the facts connected with man's life. The Christian is conscious of natural sinfulness and the possession of a moral nature with high instincts and noble principles. He has many blessings, and natural joys are open to him in all innocent degrees, and no one has a right to them in any other. Again, he sees himself and others punished under the regular plan of Ood's providence, and at other times subject to suffering which he cannot directly connect with fault, but which seems a part of the conditions of life ; and upon this chequered state of Ihings comes death as a conclusion, creating a fear of extinction, and producing a certain sense of vanity and futility about our life as a whole. Now Christianity teaches us to take each of these facts and deal with it honestly. It bids us humiliate ourselves on account of our sinfulness, not that we may remain cowed and poor-spirited, but rejoice in forgiveness and the renewal of our nature through Christ. It tdls us, too, that we are not mistaken in exulting in the thought of goodness and the thrill of virtuous resolutions and actions ; because man's nature is, as we feel it to be, pro- perly and strictly speaking, virtuous and holy. It is so in its perfect form, when in complete union with God. It is so in Christ Jesus. But as to ourselves, in whom the imperfection of nature remains, in whatever degree we approach to union with God, our exultation must always be chastened, oiir " glory- ing must be in the Lord.'' When the day comes for our thorough union with Him we shall be able then to use none but glorious language about ourselves, although the source of our glorying will be the same. And the Christian takes chastise- ment as being what it is, as a punishment which he deserves, but which is a token of love at the same time. And such afflic- tion as is not punitive he takes resignedly, as serving the {)urpo8e of discipline, thus turning it into blessing. And while the cer- tainty of death prevents his being absorbed in the present life, he does not fear it, but often is able to anticipate it with joy. So that he is able to deal honestly with all the facts of his pre- sent existence, not to shut his eyes to its imperfect character and varied aspect, but through hope to cherish the good and fear the evil. But other men do not embrace all these things in their view of life ; they will not consent to think meanly of

' See Dr* Mill on the Pantheistic theory, pp. 106, 107.

1868.] Renan : — Les Historiefu Critiques de JS$us. 67

themselves; they will take only the glorioas yiew — ^a view which it is right to take^ bat which it is premature as yet to take exdusively. And in so doings they are driven to take refdge in the glory of the race^ because the consciousness of the individual forbids him finding material enough in himself. But the race is only an aggregate of individuals, and does not rise in character above that of those who compose it. We may make an abstract idea of man if we will, and leave out features that do not please us ; but this is merely a creation of the mind. The race, indeed, has some qualities which the individual has not ; for instance, perpetuity. It has not that element of littleness which we feel in our own case — the necessity of death. But this simply means that men reproduce themselves, and leave others to take their place when they are gone. The race itself hivs no substantive existence of its own, it is simply the succession of separate men. In the same way it is a common thing to shrink from the ques- tion of responsibility and punishment ; though at the same time we are ready to admit imperfection and failure in coming up to the abstract standard of right, for the feeling of humiliation which the latter admission creates is quite distinct from that which arises from viewing ourselves as accountable to God. We get rid also of the thoughts of death as best we can. In all Uterature and society it is ignored as much as possible. But surely that system has no slight advantages which can dispose of all the facts of life without refusing to see any part of them."*

III. Let us turn now to Renan's views on the origin of the supernatural element of the four Gospels. After tracing the several steps by which the principles of criticism, applied by Wolf to the Homeric poems, were employed first upon the Old

■■ The following eloquent bat melancholy passage shews that Renan's prin- ciples do not shut out some misgiving^. We see the same tendency in similar qoarters to find support and consolation in the consciousness of an honest and Uborious search after truth, as if it were something more certain than the truth itself, which it is felt may be disappointing. ** Voila, suivant moi, Pavenir, si Parenir est an progrds. Arrivera-t-on k une vue plus certaine de la destin^e de rhomme et de ses rapports avec I'infini ? Saurons-nous plus clairement U loi de I'origine des 6tres, la nature de la conscience, ce qu'est la- Tie et la personnalit^ ? Le monde, sans revenir k la cr^dulit^ et tout en persistant dans sa voie de phi- loeophie positive, retrouvera-t-il la joie, I'ardeur, I'esp^rance, les longues pensees ? Yaudra-t-il encore' un jour la peine de yivre, et Phomme qui croit an devoir trourera-t-il dans le devoir la r&ompense? Cette science, & laquelle nous con- sacrons notre vie, nous rendra-t-eue ce que nous lui sacrifions ? Je I'i^ore. Ce qu^tly a de certain, c'est qu'en cherchant le vrai par la methode scientifique, nous aurons fait notre devoir. Si la v^rit^ est triste, nous aurons du moins la consolation de Pavoir trouv^e selon les rdgles ; ou pourra dire que nous aurions m^rit^ de la trouver plus consolante ; nous nous rendrons ce t^moignage que nous aurons ^t^ avec nons-m6me d'une sinc^rit^ absolue.'' — Discowrs cPouverture du eours de Longues H^bralque^ etc. 1862. We are reminded of the saying, '* Veritatem Philosophia quent, reltgio habet."

58 Renan : — Les Historiew Critiques de Jitius. [Aprils

and then the New Testament^ he enters upon the subject of the mythical theory advanced by Strauss. Its weak parts, he says, were soon pointed out by a large number of opponents, whose aim was to prove that the myth was impossible at the period at which Christianity appeared, and that the work necessary for the formation of a myth could not have taken place in the interval between the death of Jesus and the time at which the accounts of his life were drawn up. His own opinion on the date of the Gospels is that they carry us very near to the time of Jesus, if not in their present form, at least by means of the documents which compose them; and that they contain an immediate echo of the reports current in the first Christian generation." Hence he allows that the groundwork of the evangelic narrative is real, and censures Strauss for having almost entirely lost sight of the personal action of Jesus.^ He conceives that the supernatural part of the account of his life is a colouring of the actual facts. '^ The evangelic ideal,'^ he says, ''was the result of a transfiguration and not of a creation.'^'' And he distinguishes his theory from that of Strauss, by the use of the word legend rather than of myths Although there was no longer power of spontaneity enough to originate a myth, there was enough to produce a legendary version of a true history. Fer- tility of legend lasts until the arrival of the age of science, only diminishing in power in proportion as it is subdued by care for reality/ And the East never knew that intellectual greatness which does not need miracles. It cared little for a sage who worked no wonders. It has always looked upon nature with the eyes of a child. Thus the legend springs up of itself without intention to deceive, and once started it grows as it rolls along. The fables of the Talmud shew perfectly this tendency in the case of the Jews. And its development in the time of Christ was aided by the expectation of the Messiah and the excited con- dition of the people. At the same time he confesses that the problem is the obscurest in history, and that we must despair of ever completely understanding the question, owing to the want of the necessary documents.'

In examining this theory we may confine our thoughts to the single point of our Lord's Resurrection. If the accounts of that event could be the creation of the Christian body, we shall be able to admit still more readily that there is the same source for the supernatural form of His ministry. And if it could not be so, there will be no inducement to any one to make a dif-

- p. 172, 173. • p. 165, 211. p p. 178. ♦ p. 164, 178.

' p. 201. ' p. 199, 203.

1863.] Renan : — Les Historiens Critiques de Jimu. 59

ficully of the other miracles. For the supernatural is found in a higher degree in the resurrection than in anything else recorded in the Gospels^ except the Incarnation.^

We must begin with noticing the importance of the continua- tion of the Christian history contained in the Acts of the Apostles. The date of that book must be the same as that which Benan assigns to the Grospels, and its authority equally good. The way then in which it describes the followers of Jesus as holding together after his death, under the conviction that they formed a Charch founded by Him, and proceeding at once on the day of Pentecost to carry out his work with activity, is a great confir- mation of the truth of his appearance after the Resurrection de- scribed in the Gospels. For what else but the reality of that event can easily account for their conduct under circumstances in which we should look for their despair and dispersion ? But next, this truth was the point which they placed foremost in their teaching. It is inseparable firom any part of it even in the ear- liest times. It is the sum of St. Peter^s sermon in the second chapter. Now we must remember the importance of time in this question. A very considerable period must have elapsed before the Christians could have generally accepted the fiction of Christ having risen. It could not have had its origin nor have circulated amongst those who had been the earliest members of the church. And yet we find that this beyond everything was that which gave the chief strength to Christ's own disciples, to whose exertions the spreading (rf the Church was due. And fur- ther, the very existence of the Christian community, not as a mere multitude without any bond of union, but as an organized body, having its worship and symbolic rites (which implies some points of common belief), and in whiich the supreme authority was in the hands of the Apostles, did not present a condition of things favourable for the growth of Legend. It requires freedom, leisure, and room for the play of fancy, and absence of con- troling criticism. But the facts were too recent and the influ- ence of the Apostles too nearly felt for such an invention to have originated and spread for many years after Christ's death.

And long before we quit this period we have fresh testimony to the BesurrQction, from one who was not an original member of the Church, in the whole of St. Paul's writings. It is true that he does not allude to the events connected with the Incar-

' Compare the following passage from Renan (in his essay on Channing p. 373.) ** En y^rit^, dans cette voie il n'7 a que le premier pas qui codte : il ne faut pas marchander avec le snmatarel ; la foi va a'ane seuie pidce, et, le sacrifice ac- compli, il ne sied pas de reclaimer an detail les droits dont on a fait nne fois pour tontes I'entidre cession."

60 Benan : — Lei Hittoriens Criiigue$ de Jiius. [April,

nation^ which are also not found in St. John, and has no mention in parikicular of our Lord's miracles, yet he is a witness to the Resurrection. If we went to the length of supposing his con- viction that he had himself seen the Lord to be the result of an excited imagination, still he must either have derived the notion from the Church before he thought he was himself a wit- ness of its truth, or it must have been entirely his own delusion. In the first case, his own reference to Peter, James the Lord's brother, and all the other witnesses mentioned in 1 Cor. xv., shews what authority there was for the belief. If the other alter- native were taken, then he could have found in the same con- temporaries those who not only could have reiuted him, but who would have been bound to do so by the truthfulness which their Master inculcated. It is impossible to exaggerate the import- ance of the argument we have here briefly indicated.

And as to any tendency to legendary creation on the part of the early Christians, supposing it to exist, it could not affect the question of the Resurrection. Kenan appeals to the Talmud as proof of the fictions of which the Jewish mind was capable. But the fables in the Talmud did not concern persons known to the authors of them and their contemporaries, so as to be subject to correction from friends and enemies. The cases are not parallel. But the grand difference is that between the school of Christ and the Rabbis. The disciples had been trained to truth and sobriety. That spirit of truthfulness which they had learned from Jesus would forbid their propagating a lie under the notion of doing honour to Him. And they were too much in earnest^to play with the facts of His life, and to let their imaginations gradually invest Him with a fictitious glory.

And besides this lovfe of truth in those who were best in- formed, which would also have made it imperative upon them to discourage any such attempt on the part of others, there were two distinct parties which would have opposed all additions to what had been received from the first as our Lord's history. One of these was the Judaizing party. It is difficult quite to realize their position ; but we may be certain that they would watch with jealousy anything which would tend to weaken their hold on the law of Moses, by carrying the history of our Lord further than facts had warranted. The other was a spiritualizing party, represented by Hymenaeus and Fhiletus at Ephesns, who taught that ''the resurrection is passed already" (2 Tim. ii. 17), that is, that each Christian had experienced a spiritual resurrec- tion, and that no other was to be looked for. A similar party existed at Corinth, and occasioned the writing of the fifteenth chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians. They do

1868.] Renan : — Les Histariens Critiques de Jiius. 61

not seem indeed to bave denied the truth of Christ's resurrec- tion. It had been taught too distinctly by St. Paul. It is pro- bable^ however^ that they would have done so^ if they had been able. At least the tendency of their thought would have been adverse to the originating of such a belief. If then we find ab- solntely no trace of resistance to it^ in the e^ly period^ from any portion of the members of the churchy it seems morally certain that its reality had placed it beyond dispute.

In this discussion of Renan's opinions the reader will notice that we have said little which is new. It is satisfactory to find that the old arguments for Christianity hold their ground on the principal points, and that they simply require adaptation in order to be made serviceable in the present form of the controversy. It will be understood also that there has been no attempt to argue the question with Benan on his own ground. Our wish has been to criticize him firom the point of view taken by be- lievers in Christianity, to draw out the difference between his principles and theirs, and considering him as a representative of a class of writers, to suggest the way in which we should pro- ceed in judging of their views. The right course seems to be this, to be clear as to what our own principles are, and to be acquainted with the grounds of our belief; and then if we meet with opponents of Christianity, to try to discover their first principles, even if they do not distinctly apprehend them them- selves, or disguise them under ambiguous language. If we adopt this method, it may be hoped that we shall escape or put an end to suspense on the most important of all questions ; while we may receive material for thought, and gain, at times, enlarge- ment of view from adverse writings, without being shaken on the fundamental points of our holy faith.

( 62 ) [April,

THE IHFOBTAKCE OF LDTGUISTIC PREPAEATION FOS

MISSIONABIES IK GENERAL,

WITH 80UE BEMABKB ON CHRISTIAN UTKRATDRE IH BABTBBN TBBNACULASS.'

The call to engage personally in the work of propagating the religion of the Lord Jesus in heathen lands is great and press- ing. Would that it were more earnestly thought over^ and more sincerely and prayerfully examined by all right-minded ministers and candidates for the ministry ! This^ however^ does not form the main subject which I desire now to bring under the notioe of the Dublin University Prayer Union. But what I do desire at the present time to impress upon the members is the great importance of the due preparation of a missionary for his work.

Foremost among the requisites for missionary work is to be named personal piety and a desire to '^ win souls.^^ It is useless^ and worse than useless^ to urge an unconverted man to engage in the work of going forth to preach Christy when he has not known Him personally as his Redeemer. The first preparation must be made on the knees^ a surrender of the heart to God ; and in all the observations which I may make^ I wish it to be distinctly understood that they are made subservient to this.

But this requirement is not peculiar to foreign work^ it is just as essential at home. We have got too much into the habit of viewing the ministry at home in the light of a mere profes- sion^ preliminary to the entrance on which various courses have to be gone through. But when we consider for what purpose it was instituted by Christ, namely, '' to seek his sheep which are scattered abroad in this naughty world/' we see that to be a real, not a nominal, minister of Christ something more thau outward ordination, whether Episcopalian or otherwise, is re- quired, even an inward ordination by the Holy Ghost.

Nor is an acquaintance with theology of greater importance for foreign than for home work, as it is equally essential to both. In our two-years' divinity course a solid foundation is laid for future studies; but remember it is only a foundation. You cannot ''finish your education'' in theology. The science is

• By the Rev. Ch. H. H. Wright, M.A., Trinitjr College, Dublin, and Exeter Ck>lleffe, Oxford; Foreign Secretary of the Dubhn University Prayer Union; British Chaplain (elect) at Dresden. Read before the Union, Dec. 6th, 1862.

[We prefer to insert the article of Mr. Wright in the form in which it was delivered. As bearing upon one important department of Christian scholarship it is worthy of careful attention. The subject is one of considerable interest, and we are thankful to have it in a manner forced upon our notice. The article which follows this has been introduced as affording a practical illustration of the use which can be made of such learning as Mr. Wright so ably, judiciously, and earnestly recommends. — Ed. /. S. L,]

1868.] The importance of lAnguisiic PreparatioHy etc. 68

inexbanstible, and the Bationalists within and without our church will have performed a work for which we ought to be grateful^ when they have thoroughly aroused the clergy to give that due attention to theological and Biblical study which was ao characteristic a mark of the divines of the Reformational and Puritan eras.

And let me^ just in passings remark that it is in this way, and not by means of ecclesiastical prosecutions, that we ought to repel error. Careful reading, earnest study, and sound argu- ment, will do more to drive away strange doctrines than all the legal tribunals that may be set at work. And it is certainly a hardship that clergymen of our church should be condemned for heresy, and cut off from all position and means of liveli- hood, when few doors are open by which they may leave the Church, in consequence of the supposed indelibility of holy orders, which seems to form a portion of the law of the land. When clergymen shall be permitted by law to resign their sacred office, and to enter the ranks of the bar and the other professions without any legal disqualification — when holy orders shall be no more required in the universities as a neces- sary qualification for holding professorships unconnected with theology — it will be possible to indict individuals for heresy without the prosecutors incurring the charge of being persecu- t<»rs. May this time soon come; for surely no right-minded man can desire to see our national Church composed as it is at present of men of almost all sorts and shades of opinion, Trinitarian and Socinian, Evangelical and Tractarian, Rational- istic and Pantheistic.

To return to my theme : there are* branches of study which, though useful at home, are still more practically useful in some mission fields. For instance, a missionary in India, who desires to make way with the more intellectual Hindus who are the leaders of the masses, will be much better qualified for his work if he is acquainted with logic and metaphysics. Without this knowledge he will find it difficult to understand the various tenets of the philosophical schools of India. His ignorance in this re- spect may sometimes do harm to the truth he desires to uphold. Difficulties irom which at home he may be able profitably to divert his hearers' attention will have often to be discussed more deeply abroad.

^'The whole Hindu nation is leavened with metaphysical lore.'' The mass of the people in our own land are ignorant of, and care not to know, the speculations of philosophers on abstract questions. In India it is different ; a current of Pan- theism, now of a coarser, now of a more subtle kind, pervades

64 The importance of Linguistic Preparation [April,

the minds of its people. We are not, however, to imagine that all Hindus are imbued with a love of these questions, or that all are filled with a reverence for their philosophical systems. Re- ligion in India often consists in a mere observance of caste customs and a routine of idle ceremonies. There, as well as at home, are men to be met who know and care nothing about religion, whose god is really their belly, and who mind only earthly things.

Notwithstanding this fact, we must also bear in mind that many things are found when we search for them, which we do not discover by a mere cursory survey. A person may dwell for years in Ireland, and yet be perfectly ignorant of the pro- gress of missionary work among our Roman Catholic country- men; and so in India, civilians busied about other concerns may be totally ignorant of the progress of Christianity. Simi- larly also, a man with some knowledge of metaphysics and of Indian literature may discover many like-minded with him- self in those respects among the people, whose sentiments would be quite unknown to a man of a different stamp. At home we sometimes find that a minister who, while occupying himself with his main business of preaching the Word, acquaints him- self with the state of feeling among literary and scientific circles, is often able indirectly to do much for the cause of God, and to secure a respectful attention to his preaching from some who otherwise might not listen at all. On the other hand, we sometimes see that a clergyman who dogmatically preaches the same gospel and is ready to condemn as heretics all who differ from himself, even in their phraseology alone, often, without intending it, does much injury to evangelical truth. The case is no doubt the same abroad, ewceptis excipiendis.

A preliminary study then of logic and metaphysics will prove often of great service to the missionary, and will some- times lead him to see that the same truth can be expressed in a different phraseology. A study of the Indian schools of philo- sophy at home would perhaps occupy too much time, but yet the missionary-designate might profitably peruse the essay of Dr. Mullens, the Rev. E. M. Banerjea's Dialogues on the Hindu Philosophy, and Dr. Ballantyne's Christianity contrasted with Hindu Philosophy, along with his specimen fasciculus of the Bible for the Pandits, Dr. Ballantyne's works especially will supply him with many valuable hints, though he may not Always coincide with their learned author.

We may safely omit speaking of the importance of a know- ledge of Greek, especially of Biblical Greek, since it is gener- ally considered as necessary for all clergymen, although a real

r

1863.] for Missionaries in general. 65

acquaintance with it is not commonly to be met with. But the case is different with respect to Hebrew^ which is sadly neglected, and generally^ when not altogether neglected, studied on such an unsound basis that it would be better not known at all. The multiplicity of such '' helps '^ as grammatical analyses, and the very discreditable blunders into which many of the defenders of truth have fallen in their replies to Essays and Reviews, and in their criticisms on the recently-published and much to be lamented work of Bishop Colenso, would supply many illustrations of the truth of this statement. We have now, however, to deal with the subject in its relation to the missionary. And from this point of view Hebrew is one of the most important languages, if studied on a sound grammatical foundation. It is the key to the other Shemitic languages, and in many particulars resembles more closely the modern than the classical Arabic. Inde- pendently of its great importance as enshrining the sacred ora- cles of Gk)d, its position as auxiliary to a knowledge of Arabic would of itself render it of immense value to the missionary.

Though the grammar of Gesenius cannot be dispensed with by English students, I may be permitted to call attention to an excellent grammar written in English, now in the course of publication (the first part has already appeared) by Dr. M. M. Kalisch, one of our first Hebrew scholars. The numerous exer- cises interwoven with the work render it of peculiar value, and much information will be found in the second part which is not to be derived even from the grammar of Gesenius. I refer of course to the smaller grammar of Gesenius, which is the only one that has been translated into English.

In speaking of missionary work, it cannot be forgotten that India is the scene of our most important missionary operations, and that by far the greater number of our university mission- aries are labouring in that field. Though a knowledge of He- brew will be of great importance to an Indian missionary, there is one language which he ought by no means to neglect, and which may be perhaps of still more consequence to him, namely, the Sanskrit. Through its medium alone any real insight can be obtained into the theology and philosophy of the Hindus. The Vedas, their sacred books, the Upanishads, the philosophical supplements thereto, the Puranas which explain the more popular aspects of Hindu worship, the laws of Mann, the great epic poems, the dramas, in fine all that is valuable or authoritative in Hindu worship, religion, literature, and philosophy, must be sought for in Sanskrit. An acquaintance with this literature, even in its broad outlines, will be of great service to the mis- sionary.

NEW SERIES. VOL. III., NO. V. F

66 The impariance of Linguistic Preparation [Aprit

And not only ia Sanskrit of importance as containing the Hindu literature^ it is perhaps of still more value as the root and source of many of the vernacular tongues. Bengali^ Marathi and Gujarathi are closely Sanskritic. Hindi, Hindustani (which is Hindi mixed with Arabic and Persian), and the many dialects and languages of North and West India are all full of Sanskrit words, which generally form the greater portion of their voca- bularies. Even the South Indian languages, though belonging to a different family, have borrowed ''from the Sanskrit an infinity of words relating to science, law, religion, caste, and the various incidents of Hindu life.^'

Allow me here to refer on this subject to the lecture by Professor Monier Williams, the Boden Professor at Oxford, "On the Study of Sanskrit in relation to Missionary Work in India,^'* which is deserving of a careful perusal.

Of scarcely less importance is a knowledge of Arabic. Sans- krit is the language which will prove of most service to the mis- sionary among the Hindus, while Arabic is of more value to the missionary among the Mussulmans, as it is their sacred lan- guage. There are indeed translations of the Koran into Persian and Hindustani, but nothing can compensate in general for a want of acquaintance with the original Arabic. It is a language, too, deserving of study from the great value of the works contained in it, and doubly interesting from the light which it. sheds upon Hebrew. We must also remember, that in acquiring Hindu- stani, the lingua franca of North India, Arabic will be found of still greater service than even Sanskrit.

Notwithstanding the great importance of these studies to a missionary, there is in many quarters a prejudice against them. Instead of recommending individuals designated for missionary work, who may be obliged to remain at home for a year or two, to pursue such studies, many members of missionary committees would prefer such persons rather to engage in the work of the parochial ministry. A knowledge of Arabic, Sanskrit, etc., when already acquired by a missionary candidate, is no doubt often approved of and commended, but very slight indeed is the en- couragement given to take up such studies. Persons desirous of pursuing such studies, have actually been suspected of being " bookworms,^^ and of not having their hearts in the right place. But, assuredly, if work in India among a heathen people is the aim of an individual, he would be much better prepared for it by a study of the sacred books and languages of the people among whom he is going, than by devoting himself for the time he is at home to the ordinary routine of parochial work.

* London : Williams and Norgate.

1863.] for Misiionaries in general. 67

''The children of this world are'' stiU "wiser in their gene- ration than the children of light/' notwithstanding onr Lord's exhortation to be " wise as serpents though harmless as doves." This is illastrated by the care which the Oovernment now takes that their men^ who are to fill only secular offices^ shall be well grounded in the elements of Sanskrit or Arabic^ and of one of the Temaculars^ before quitting this country^ while on the other hand missionary societies in general look coldly upon such studies. But surely, if a preliminary preparation in these lan- guages is useful to members of the Civil Service, much more necessary is it for the missionary service.

Dr. A. Judson, one of the greatest missionaries of modern times, thus expressed himself with respect to the utility of study- ing Pali, the sacred language of Burmah, introduced into that country along with Buddhism : —

*' It is obvious that the introdactioD of a new religion and new sacred writings must have had great effect on the language of a people : and, accordingly, not to speak of the influence which the Pali has had on the gnieral construction of the Burman language, a considerable number of words in common use, and a very great proportion of theological terms, •re of Pali origin. Thus, though the Pali is now a dead language, culti- vated by the learned only, some knowledge of it is indispensable to one who would acquire a perfect knowledge of the Burman, — and especially to a missionary who intends to translate the Scriptures, and who ought, therefore, above all others, to be perfectly acquainted with the terms he employs.**

Even in South India, among the non-Sanskritic languages, the above remarks are fully applicable to Sanskrit; how much more then in the case of the languages of the North and West?

We have so far alluded only to the so-called sacred languages, but a preliminary preparation might also be well made at home in the case of some, if not all, of the vernaculars, more especially Hindustani and Bengali. There is unfortunately in missionary circles a common prejudice against a study of these languages at home, but the best authorities agree that after a careful study of the elements at home, the languages would be acquired col- loquially on the spot in less than half the time, and with greater grammatical accuracy than it is possible to do in India. The Bev. Dr. MuUens of the London Missionary Society thus speaks on this point : —

" The beginnings of his knowledge a missionary may well secure at home. While continuing other studies, he may for twelve months give attention to his new language ; to the verbs, nqpns, and common terms ;

F 2

68 The importance of Linguistic Preparation [April,

and endeavour to secure the thorough acquisition of a small vocabulary. The pronunciation he should learn under a competent teacher."^

Still more striking is the testioiony of one of our own mem- bers, the Eev. William Gray, M.A., ex-Sch. T. C. D : —

" Let me remark upon this most important point in the study of the language, that no native is equal, in point of value as a teacher, to a Euro^ pean toho has mastered the language. This at least is my experience. You will generally find the native moonshees either so little interested in your progress, or so timid about correcting your mistakes, or so ignorant of the real way of teaching you the pronunciation, that in fact you wiU be obliged constantly to insist upon their correcting you. Else, during the time of their being with you, you will find them beyond all question in a state half way between wakefulness and sleep."^

Of still more importance is the testimony of Sir C. E. Tre- velyan in the report of the Civil Service Commissioners : —

" It is an important fact, that the elements of the Indian languages can be acquired with much greater facility and exactness with the assist- ance of an European teacher than of a MouLavie or Pandit. The object be- ing to bridge the intervalbetween two systems of language, a well-instructed English professor who has studied the grammar and construction of both, and is familiar both with the previous knowledge of the student, and with the difficulties he is likely to feel, is a far better guide than a native who knows only his own system and has little in common with the English student.''

The Commissioners remarked that the above extract was shewn to the late Professor H. H. Wilson, who fully coincided with it. H^ added, with reference to tuition in India : —

" The great merit of the old college of Fort William course was the com-' bination 0/ European and native instructors ; the former giving the principles^ the latter the practice. European professors alone are competent to in- troduce European students to a knowledge of the oriental languages. Native teachers are valuable to perfect them in their use. I have re- peatedly shewn, by a reference to the Indian examinations, that a young civilian becomes qualified for the public service in a longer or a shorter period, in proportion to the knowledge of the languages in which he has to pass that he takes icith him from this country. ^^

Professor Max Miiller says : —

'< It is a mistake to imagine that the Oriental languages can be better learnt in Calcutta than in London. The elements of grammar and a knowledge of the literature can be acquired infinitely better from Euro- ])ean teachers ; and it is only after this solid foundation has been laid, that actual intercourse and conversation with natives can be of any prac- tical use."

" Report of the Missionary Conference at Liverpool, p. 20. '* Duhlin University Prayer Union Report for 1861.

1863.] /or Misnonaries in general, 69

Dr. John Muir, late of the Bengal Civil Service, the learned editor of several Sanskrit works, and founder of the Sanskrit professorship in the University of Edinburgh, thus writes: —

*' The first point of qualification to be noticed is the acquisition of the Indian language, or languages, which are to form the medium of communi- cation between the missionary and those to whom he is sent. It is not essential that the missionary student should in every case become an accomplished oriental scholar before he sets sail for India. It is, however, much to be desired that he should be so, if his course of reading can be so arranged as to leave him sufficient time for this branch of study, with- out neglecting others to which it is even more essential that he should devote himself at this stage of his career. It is especially important that those missionaries who are destined to labour among learned Hindus and Mohammedans should, before leaving home, make good progress in Sanskrit and Arabic, which are more difficult of acquisition than the vernacular dialects of India."'

Are not these testioionies, which might easily be multiplied, sufficient to shew that it would be well if at least the rudiments of the required languages were studied at home? Much way would be made in them by a careful study of six months, or even less, devoted to this purpose under competent professors.

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel wisely recog- nized the importance of such studies by announcing two years ago that it was willing to support missionary scholarships in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. No candidates, however, presented themselves at that time, and I am informed by the secretary of that society that it has not renewed its offer since that time, and ^' is not now prepared to do so.^^

In the Missionary College of St. Augustine, Canterbury, these studies do not seem to be neglected ; Hebrew forms part of the course of study for both the second and third years, and Dr. Reinhold Rost, a Sajiskrit and Dravidic scholar of high eminence is the Oriental lecturer to the college.

But why should not the Church Missionary Society do some- thing in this department? The course of study in Islington College is generally of four years duration, but, with the excep- tion of Hebrew, no other oriental language is regularly taught within its walls.

It might, however, without material inconvenience, be ar- ranged that the course at Islington College for non-university men should be brought to a close in three and a half years, and six months out of the four years' course be specially devoted to

* Vide his BemarJcs on the conduct of MUaionary Operations in Nortliem India, and on the Trcdning of Missionary Agents. Capetown : 1852. A tract which it is to be hoped Dr. Muir may be induced to republish.

70 The importance of lAnguUtic Preparation [Aprils

linguistic preparation : — or the course might be extended by that period. In the case of those men proceeding to India^ Hindus- tani^ Bengali^ etc.^ according to the destined locality^ would form a suitable subject of study for all^ and in case of special aptitude for such studies in certain individuals^ the elements of Sanskrit or Arabic might in addition be acquired. Returned missionaries might well be employed on such service. The study of Hebrew and Qreek might also be more carefully attended to in this six months' course.

For university men^ a somewhat di£ferent plan would be required. Individuals might occasionally avail themselves of the advantages of Islington^ but in general it would be found more useftd to maintain missionary candidates at their respective universities. Regularly founded missionary scholarships, open to competition, are objectionable in many particulars. But what objection could be made to giving exhibitions to students in the universities, regularly engaged for missionary work, for not less than one year's duration, and not more than three? The value of such exhibitions should be of £40 for three years, £60 for two, and £60, £80, or £100 for one year, according to merit, upon condition of presenting certificates each year of two terms diligent study of some oriental languages, under a recog- nized university professor, or in the case of only one year's such study being possible, a certificate of attendance of three terms ; together with a certificate of having passed the ordinary univer- sity course with credit, if the student had not already completed his university currictUum. In the latter case, it might be well to leave the individual free during that period either to enter into holy orders or not, according to his own discretion.

By some such regulation as this, the Church Missionary Society would enable their missionaries to acquire the various vernaculars of their respective stations with greater ease and faci- lity, and their men would be better equipped for their work. Individuals who had no facility for acquiring a foreign language would be easily discovered, and thus the number of missionaries unable to speak the vernaculars of the people among whom they labour would be reduced. Stipulations might easily be entered into by the holders of such exhibitions for returning the money to the Society should circumstances hinder them from proceeding abroad. Cases of individual hardship might well be left to the discretion of the Committee.

Another object of great importance would also be gained by an adoption of this plan, and that is, a larger accession of men to the missionary ranks. For it is a well-known fact that without any diminution of zeal, or of love for souls, direct and personal

1863.] for Missionaries in generals 71

calls to home-spheres of work are often made on men at the con- clusion of their uniTcrsity course^ which^ as they are more per- sonal^ weigh more than the indirect call to missionary work^ when a man has to seek employment instead of being sought for. Several instances readily arise to my own mind of the truth of these remarks.

It is unnecessary to call attention to the advantages that are presented in this university for due preparation in these lan- guages, etc. I trust the time is not far distant when the inte- resting Sanskrit lectures of my friend Dr. Siegfried/ and the classes in Arabic and Hindustani^ will be attended, not merely as now by candidates for the civil service, and an occasionid amateur, but also by some seeking to prepare themselves for the higher service of becoming the Christian teachers of India.

A few words in conclusion on a kindred topic, namely, on Christian literature in eastern vernaculars. To create such a literal ture special men are required. At home, there are many men of great ministerial usefulness who do not come forward as literary writers, and there are not a few, as might well be expected, who though they do come forward are not successful as such. We very naturally expect to see the same thing exhibited in mission fields. There as here, there are some men of literary taste, few however in number, and there as here, there are men who write books which are not of much value or interest. It cannot be otherwise. An element, too, adverse to literary usefulness is found abroad which does not exist at home, namely^ the neces- sity of writing in a foreign language. Hence not only is literary taste required, but also the power of acquiring accurately the idiom of a foreign language.

It is^ in addition, requisite that a writer for the East should have a good acquaintance with oriental tastes. The evil of many works, written in the vernacular by missionaries, is not only that they are defective in vigour and faulty in idiom^ but also that they exhibit too much of what has been well designated as Anglicism, and are therefore unadapted for the masses.

No doubt to remedy completely these defects we must seek for native writers: but native authors are not readilv to be found. We cannot expect many original works to be produced in India for a long time to come. W herever a talent for author-

/ Since these lines were penned, and only four or five days after this paper had been read, the University of Dublin sustained a severe loss by the sad and luexpected death of Dr. Rudolph T. Siegfried, Professor of Sanskrit. Enthu- siastically fond of his subject, he often succeeded in infusing that enthusiasm into his pupils. Dr. C. Lottner, an able philologist, at present supplies his place.

72 The importance of linguistic Preparation [April,

ship is exhibited by native Hindus or others, it ought to be sedulously fostered, instead of being, as is sometimes done, kept under by the European missionaries. Still, translations must necessarily form the staple of Christian Indian literature for some time to come. The formation of the Christian Vernacular Education Society for India was a step in the right direction, and it has already done a good deal to encourage works in the vernaculars, whether written by missionaries or natives.

In the preparation of school books, much care must be taken above all things to avoid the prevalent tendency to Anglicize. We have seen reading books, for instance, designed for transla- tion into Indian vernaculars, composed mainly of extracts, and not very light or amusing ones either, from different English authors, including extracts from some of our poets; as, for example, Thomson^s Seasons, Gay's Fables, and such like. We would suggest the adoption of quite a different plan. Why should the native literatures be completely ignored ? The Hito- padesa might supply such a work with exquisite fables; the Arab historians and geographers would furnish some very inte- resting and thoroughly oriental narratives and descriptions; proverbs of native origin are to be had in abundance ; extracts from some of the Sanskrit dramas, an unobjectionable Yedic hymn, and an unobjectionable extract from the Koran would diversify the work. Chapters from Isaiah, so frdl of oriental imagery, chapters from St. John, so full of beautiful gospel truth, with occasional, and only occasional, extracts from English, writers, when combined, would form reading books suited to orientid tastes, and more acceptable to the people at large^ without the slightest compromise of truth.

Few natives can be employed at present without European superintendence, and if much real and not merely apparent pro- gress is to be made in this direction, men must be specially set apart for literary work. But missionary societies in general seem to shrink from doing this, as it is not likely to be popular at home, where the common idea of a missionary seems still to be that of a person travelling from place to place with a Bible in. his hand, preaching to the people. The fact is too often thrown into the background, that without previous instruction the good seed is for the most part but scattered on the wayside, to be gathered up by the fowls of the air.

It must not be forgotten, however, that the Baptist Mis- sionary Society has done much for India, especially in the way of Biblical translations, and that the other great societies have all contributed something. Perhaps the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions has issued the greatest

1863.^ for Missionaries in general, 73

number of works in the different languages of the respective oonntries where their missions have been established.

There is much, verjr much^ need of combination in order to effect any great resolt in this department. It is far easier to translate a work from one oriental language to another than direct from English. Thus it is easier to translate from Persian into Hindustani^ or from Hindustani into Bengali^ or from Sanskrit into Marathi, or from Arabic into Hindustani^ than to translate into any of these languages direct from English. There is a greater probability of the correct idiom being attained^ and such work can more safely be committed to native translators.

Arabic would serve with advantage as the literary language for the greatest part of the East^ and^ combined with Hindus- tani and Tamils for India. In these languages it is of essential importance that school books should be either compiled or trans- lated from the best European models. Scientific manuals^ theo- logical treatises^ — devotional^ dogmatic and controversial^ — with commentaries on the Scriptures^ — not only homiletical^ but also directly exegetical^ — tracts^ story books for the young, some sound works on philosophy and on other subjects are needed. Christian literature in any of the vernaculars of the east is of very limited extent. In some a complete version of the Scriptures is not to be had ; in others, scarcely more than the Bible and a few ordi- Dary tracts. In very few of them are there to be found any first rate books on theology, history, or science, and very few instructive books for children are to be had in these languages.

But suppose for instance, that the missionaries at Beyrout, Damascus, and Cairo were in concert with the missionaries in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay ; that the work were fairly divided among them, and really valuable books were at once composed, compiled, and translated, in the first instance into Arabic and and Hindustani, under conjoint native and missionary superin- tendence, and then translated or re-translated into the various languages in which they were required, — ^in a much shorter time than under the present circumstances the grand object might be attained. This idea may be found practically Utopian, but it is worth consideration.

Of all languages for the East, Arabic is the most useful for this purpose. It has many readers in India, and good works brought out in it could, without much trouble, be made available in that country. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions have made a good beginning of a Christian literature in that language, but it is only a commencement. The ingenious plan of the Bev. Jules Ferette, a missionary of the Irish Presby- terian Church, for printing Arabic with all the required vowels.

74 The importance of Linguistic Preparation [April,

and with only one row of type instead of three as formerly, will lessen materially the expense of Arabic printings and induce the printing of Arabic works with all the fiecessary vowels. A fiill description of this scheme will be found in the number of Evan^ gelical Christendom for December, 1862.

Beyrouth Damascus, and Cairo would form important centres for producing an Arabic Christian literature, and the importance of the latter post makes the withdrawal of the Church Missionary Society^s mission the more to be regretted. The American mis* sionaries have occupied the place; but, valuable as their labours are, and able as are their missionaries in that city, — as I was glad to find acknowledged by all parties on the spot — they admitted to me that their varied duties precluded them from doing much for Christian literature. They would gladly welcome a mis* sionary of any denomination who would take up that department in a Catholic spirit. The Mahommedans, except perhaps in India, are not yet ripe for any decided aggression upon their doctrines ; but works on Christianity of an uncontroversial ten- dency would in time prepare the way for more aggressive measures.

The school, lately established in Cairo by the energy of Miss M. L. Whately, will possibly hereafter prove of considerable importance. Perhaps the time is not far distant when an English mission may be re-commenced there, not to interfere with the labours of our American brethren, but to supplement their efforts by aiming to make that city a centre of Christian literature for Africa and the greater part of Asia.

Hindered as I have been hitherto by unforeseen circum- stances from engaging personally in missionary work in India, which I had long looked forward to as my destined field of laboiir for Christ, I confess my eyes still turn with longing towards the East. I trust that in His good time an opening may be made, by which I can assist in what I cannot but regard as one of the most important departments — the preparation of an Eastern literature thoroughly leavened with a Christian spirit.

What work can be nobler, what work more spirit-stirring, than thus to labour for Christ in distant lands ? To be the regenerators of the East ; to rekindle there the light of Chris- tianity I to rescue from spiritual thraldom these noble oriental races ; to fulfil literally the parting command of the Saviour, may well fire the ambition and kindle the zeal of the servants of Christ.

The work is great, the labourers are few ; few are willing to go forth, and of those few some are providentially detained at home. Will not the thought inspire many of you to offer for

Id6&.'l /or Miirionaries in general, 75

this great and important service ; some of yon going forth to preach from city to city^ and from village to Tillage the glad tidings of Jesns^ love ; others to help forward the same cause by teaching the young, by training a native ministry, and by pro- viding a Christian literature? If such be the desire of any^ consecrate yourselves on your knees to Christ, and rise therefrom to prepare yourselves for the work by careful study, as well as by earnest prayer, well assured that though God may use the weakest instrument for his glory, we ought not to weaken our-^ selves, nor to suffer indolence to mar our efforts, for ^' the night Cometh when no man can work/^

POSTSCEIPT.

The following letter from Bev. Dr. Van Dyck, missionary under the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, and Superintendent of their Mission Press at Beyrout, which I have received since writing the above, is so important that I snbjoin it here. Of course it will be understood, in advocating the setting apart of missionaries for literary work, that such men should first be well acquainted with ordinary missionary work. I may remark also that native professors of Arabic and Hindustani, etc., are to be found in this country, as for instance, Meer Owlad Alee, Professor of Arabic and Hindustani, in the University of Dublin.

" Beirut, Bee. 19ih, 1862.

" My dear Sir, — I have just received yours of Nov. 22nd. Though my time is more than occupied, I must reply at least a few words. I enclose an imperfect list of the works in Arabic, printed at our press, in addition to the titles given in the ' Memorial Yolame.'

*' For some three or four years past our press has been almost wholly employed upon the Scriptures. Many of our most useful works are out of print, and we have not now the funds to enable us to re-issue them. We have a number of works nearly ready, i. e., they require editing, but as long as I am so wholly occupied in the translation of the Old Testa- ment I can do nothing else, and all our number have just as much mis- sionary work as they can possibly perform. . . .

*' What you say in regard to translating from one oriental tongue into another has been sometimes practised. A few of the works published in Arabic have been translated from the Arabic into Hindustani.

'* In regard to the training of missionaries for the foreign field, the subject is a very important one, and well deserves the attention of the Church. I have time only to throw out one hint which will shew the way my mind inclines. The effect of climate upon northerners, in Syria, and in India, and Africa, is so trying that many missionaries die, or their health fails, before they acquire the language so as to be able to write in it. A couple of years at home in their native clime, spent upon the lan- guages they are expected to use, would be a great saving of time and

76 The importance of Lingtdstic Preparation [Aprils

health, to say nothing of expense. But then care should be taken as to teachers. If a missionary once gets a false pronunciation of a spoken language, ten to one he never gets over it, and has a bad pronunciation all his life. No one can teach the pronunciation like a native, at least very few foreigners ever acquire such an accurate pronunciation as to answer for teachers in this respect. I speak now from what I know in regard to the Arabic ; I suppose it must be so in some degree at least with the lan- guages of India.

" If any are to be set apart to the literary department of missions, if I may so call it, it should be from those who have been for several years working missionaries, I would trust no others, either as regards the nature of the works to be prepared nor as to the actual doing the work. I could enlarge upon this part of the subject very much if I had time. The demand for reading in the East is on the increase. Native minds are springing up qiialified to do the work of translating, etc., after a longer or shorter period of training. Give them an accurate version of the Scrip- tures, a concordance, and a good Bible dictionary, and they will work out their own Christian literature. If we foreigners can help them still farther than this, so much the better. But all our aim should be to make evan- gelical Christianity indigenous and self-supporting in oider to make it self- propagating. The longer natives rely upon foreign help the slower will be the progress of the work of evangelization. I have written very hastily and under a great pressure. Hoping you will be able to do much towards helping on the great work at home, if not abroad,

" I remain very truly yours, "To Rev. C. H. H. Wright.'* "C. V. A. Van Dyck.*'

The following is an extract from a letter addressed to me by the Rev. James Long, of Calcutta : —

" The plan of allowing missionaries destined for the East to devote a portion of their last year's residence in Europe to Oriental studies, met in 1861 with the cordial concurrence of the Calcutta Missionary Con- ference, composed of about twenty-five missionaries of various denomina- tions. The subject occupied the entire time of one meeting, and a sub- committee was appointed to draw up a scheme which was submitted to the conference, and met with their full approbation. It recommended that the subjects of study should embrace, — The Hindu and Mussulman sys- tems in their primitive forms and developments : the history and geo- graphy of the East in special relation to mission localities :. the Sanskrit or Arabic — the outlines of their grammars, and their connexion with the vernaculars of India.

" It was felt by the conference that the time was rapidly coming when the work of the missionary in India, in the mtgority of cases, would be mainly the development of native agency and the working by native in- strumentality, and that the above-mentioned studies would give a key to the native mind, a knowledge of which is so necessary for the European.

'' The foundation of these studies could be pursued with more advan- tage in Europe, as there libraries are more accessible, and the mind is not 80 diverted by the cares and distractions connected with a mission station. Missionaries on arriving in India are generally drafted off to remote

1863.] for Missionaries in general. 17

stations, or to work, and the study of the vernacnlars then occupies almost exclusively their attention.

'' The increasing antagonism of race between many of the Europeans and natives in India, renders it more advisable to qualify the missionary to act as a link between the two, combining a knowledge of one race from bis previous training, and of the other by subsequent studies and associa- tion. The gulf between the European and Oriental mind is so wide that lie should bridge it as far as possible by preparatory studies."

The American Board have issued upwards of- sixty works in Arabic^ besides smaller tracts. Of these the most important (omitting all mention of editions of the Holy Scriptures) are : Elements of Arabic Grammar, 12mo^ pp. 168; Arabic Syntax, 16mo, pp. 74; Summary of Evangelical Doctrines, 12mo^ pp. 60; On the Holy Spirit, 12mo^ pp. 256; Good Works, 16mo, pp. 87; Nevinson Popery, l6mo^ pp. 156; Pilgrim's Progress; Bistany's Arithmetic; Alexander's Evidences of Christianity; Calhoun's Ckmipanion to the Bible ; Van Dyck's Geography and Grammar ; Meshakah On Scepticism ; On Rites and Ceremonies, These are mentioned in the Memorial Volume of the A. B, C. F. M, Dr. Van Dyck^ in his list, in addition mentions : History of Mount Lebanon, 8vo, pp. 120; Van Dyck's Arabic Prosody and Euclid; Bickersteth's Scripture Help, Line upon Line ; Meshakah on ttie Papacy, On Priesthood, On Antichrist; Reading and Spelling Books; Little Henry and his Bearer; Extracts from Chrysostom; A Kempis' Imitation of Christ ; Siances in imitation of the famous Stances or Makamat of El-Hariri ; Arabic Grammar in Rhyme, with a Commentary, by NasTf-el-Yazigi ; Diwan (poemsj of Nasif-el-Y.; Transactions of Syrian Oriental Association; Arabic Rhetoric, by Nasif-el-Y.; also Logic and Prosody, by the same; Hymn and Psalm Book; Children's Hymn Book; Robinson Crusoe; Memoir of Asaad-esh-Shidiak ; Ford on Prayer and Fasting; Bistany's Book-keeping, etc.; besides tracts and ser- mons, as Miss Whately's Letter to the Women of Syria ; Lectures on Oriental Customs ; Sermons of Van Dyck, etc. The Church Missionary Society have also published some two dozen books and tracts, including Bird's Controversial Tracts (2s. 6d.) ; Ele- ments of Astronomy ; Common Prayer; Life of Rev. Pliny Flsk; Extracts from Church History (Is.); Life of Luther (Is. 6d.), etc. This will give an idea of the Christian literature in Arabic, which in its extent is very creditable to the exertions of the missionaries, but which of course will require to be very considerably ex- tended to meet the requirements of the East. See a paper on the Arabic Missionary Press at Damascus, by Rev. Jules Fer- rette, in Evangelical Christendom, for January, 1863.

_

1

( 78 ) [April,

THE BUDDHIST SCBIPTUBES AND THEIB LANGUAGE,

THE PALL-

FoRTY-pivE years before the " conveutional era " of the Sing- halese did Gdtama proclaim the tenets of Buddhism. That religion^ which was decidedly a modification of Brahmanisro^ — • devoid of its mystery^ inhumanity^ intolerance^ and exclusive- ness^ and founded by a Kshestriya prince — was not long before it spread amongst the people^ and became the state creed of the Majjhima d^a. Kings were amongst his first disciples ; thou- sands of Brahmans and fire-worshippers were reckoned amongst his votaries ; and nobles^ merchants^ and itinerant traders, formed his most attentive congregations. Patronized by princes^ sup- ported by nobles^ and encouraged by the state^ the S&kya fraternity soon increased in numbers^ enjoyed a much larger share of freedom than other denominations of ascetics, and exercised far greater privileges than even the Brahmans^ or the laymen of the realm.

With such adventitious aid, Gdtama's doctrines were speedily disseminated far and wide. They went early into Pachchanta^ beyond the confines of the Majjhima desa. Wherever they went, caravan keepers carried the glad tidings of the new teacher; merchants enlarged upon his virtues; and itinerant traders related his doctrines. Great was the joy of those who were brought to the knowledge of the Word. "ScUihuP* ''ShdhuP* exclaimed all who had heard it. Those who had come under its influence lost no time in following the sage. Kings deserted their thrones; governors and chieftains their high trusts ; nobles and ministers their avocations ; and all their happy homes^ wives, and children^ for the yellow robe of the Sakya ''mendicanf — bhikkhus. Thus^ at no distant period from their first promulgation, the dhamma became the household words of the people, the theme of the traveller^ and the topic of epistolary correspondence between princes.

Although it is stated in the Buddhavanaa that Gdtama^ prompted by '^a misgiving common to all Buddhas,^' was at first *' reluctant to proclaim the dhamma/' jei there seems to be no Ibundation for this assertion; for^ as it is also stated, ''he was destined to save multitudes.'' He was essentially Satta, " the teacher/' His peculiar vocation was to convert. No part of his career contradicts the belief that he was most solicitous for the dissemination of his dhamma. His whole life, after he

« A lecture delivered in the HaU of the Colombo Academy, by James Alwis, Esq., on the 29th November, 1861. Colombo : 1862. See p. 62, ante.

1868.] The Buddhist Scriptures and their Language. 79

had become Buddha^ was devoted to its proclamation^ its eluci- dation^ and its exaltation. Seeing that " the harvest was great^ but that the labourers were few/^ he directed that ''no two priests should take the same road.^^ As an encouragement to the first missionaries, he declared that there were beings whose love for religion was not wholly extinguished ; that their natural reluctance to hear the Mamma would vanish; and that there were others who could master it.

To render, moreover, his religion agreeable to the people, Gdtama even relaxed the rigid rules of discipline which be had at first enacted. He altered them to suit the circumstances, and also the prejudices of men. Where ordination could not be conferred without the intervention of ten priests, he reduced the prescribed number by one haff in favour of foreign countries ; where a village was rugged, stony, and overrun with brambles and thistles, the priests were permitted to wear thicker shoes than usual; where bathing was rendered necessary more fre- quently than was allowed, as in the case of the priests of Ongein, he relaxed the rule in their favour; where the use of skins had been prohibited, an exception was made in favour of those who had a national predilection for their use.

Such were the expedients adopted by Gdtama for dis- seminating Buddhism amongst the people. Yet the happiest device of all was to reject for his doctrines the sacred language of the Brahmans, and to adopt the vernacular dialect of his time, the Pili.

The account given by the Singhalese of their sacred Budd* hist books, which receive the appellation of Pitakatt&ya and the Atthakatha, is, that at the first convocation, which took place in the eighth year of king Aj&tasatta's reign (543 B.C.), the now existing orthodox version of Pittakattdya was rehearsed according, as the Brahmans say, to their Srutiy and was defined and authenticated with such care and precision as to fix the very number of syllables which it contained ; that certain comments called the Attakatha were made at the same time ; that at the second and third convocations, the Pittakattdya was rehearsed with a view to the suppression of certain schisms which had sprung up, and additional Attakatha were delivered, exhibtting the history of Buddhism between each preceding convocation; and that they were all preserved in the memory of succeeding generations.

It is moreover stated that the entire body of doctrines was afterwards brought into Ceyion by Mahindu, and orally pro- mulgated by him upon his^ mission to Ceylon to disseminate Buddhism in it ; and that the doctrines contained in our present

80 The Buddhist Scriptures and their Language. [April,

Toluminous records were orally perpetuated by the priesthood in Ceylon until the reign of king Yalanganbfthu (104 — 7Q B.C.), when "/or the first time they were committed to writing/' It would also seem that these writings were afterwards consulted (412 A.D.) by Buddhagdsa for his compilation of the Attakatha, which were not then extant in Asia.

I have examined the original expressions in the Pali records which authorize the above summary, and, I confess, there is scarcely anything in the import of them hostile to the belief that the Buddhist doctrines, like those of Mahomet, had a written existence in Asia at the same time that portions of them were committed to memory, which is not disputed. * Memory and writing being means by which both words and actions are perpetuated, and there being a great analogy between the mental and physical process by which this is effected, it is not strange that nearly all acts in reference to them are found so expressed in metaphorical language as to render a double inter- pretation possible. Yet there are indeed certain expressions which may be more reasonably traced to a written than a memorial preservation of the Word. Apart from the evidence deducible from the phraseology of the Scriptures themselves, we obtain most ample testimony firom the inadvertent admissions of Buddhist writers, that the doctrines of G6tama were reduced to writing from the commencement of the Buddhist era, if not in the very lifetime of the sage.

Against this position, which may be supported by various circumstances and considerations, it has been asserted that the Buddhist Scriptures mentioned " cannon ^' and " fire-arms/* and spoke, though in the language of prophecy, of lonians and Asoka, and, therefore, they were written after the invention of gunpowder, and posterior to the Greek domination in Asia. As for the "invention of gunpowder/' its date is not ascertained; yet, granting that it was not known before the time of Petrarch and Boccado, it may be affirmed that " fire-arms '' are not men- tioned in any of the canonical works of Buddhism. We read of cavalry and infantry; of horses, elephants, and chariots; of bows, arrows, spears, javelins, targets, and swords; but not a single word about " guns ** or " gunpowder ;'* and I may remark that the very name for gunpowder does not exist in the Pali language. The work, however, which contains the expres- sion referred to, is the Malalangedara Vattu, another version of the Lalita Vistara, which, I need scarcely observe, is a recent work, and, as its very name implies, "a glowing exaggeration/'

As to the inference sought to be deduced, viz., that the Yavanas — who were "a head-shaving race'* — were lonians or

1863.] The Buddhist Scriptures and their Language. 81

Bactrian Greeks, who could only have been known in Asia after the conquests of Alexander the Great, it is indeed unfounded. Few subjects connected with the history and chronology of the East are capable of more satisfactory proof than that the Yavanas or Yonas had been known before G6tama Buddha.

The identification of Yavana with Mahomedans is indeed open, in the opinion of Professor Wilson, to the objection that the former are mentioned in works prior to the Mahomedan era. In one of Asoka's inscriptions, the Gimar, Antiochus is called the Yona raja, ^^ the king of the Yonas.^' The Milindapprasna speaks of Milinda as a Yona king ; whether he be identical with Menander, and the Yonaka country with Euthydemia, remains to be proved. From the Milindapprasna, however, we learn that Milinda was born at Kalasi in Alasaddo, two hundred yqjanas from Sagal; and that Sagal was only twelve yojanas from Cashmir.

Isiodorus also mentions Sagal and Alexandria in the same sentence; and from the Mahawansa, moreover, we learn that Alasadda or Alasanda was the capital of the Yona country. The mention of d^a or ^' island " in reference to Alasanda, in one of the passages above referred to, presents, however, no valid objections against its identification with Alexandria; for Pali writers and Buddhists in general, like the ancient Greeks, had a very vague notion of the geographical position of countries.

Perhaps the Milindapprasna as well as the inscriptions do not furnish conclusive proofs on the subject, since they were composed cleiEurly after the date of Asoka, which is expressly mentioned therein ; — nor indeed are the Natakas of much value for the same reason ; — but the same objection does not apply to Manu, or the Maha Bharata, in both which ancient works the Yavanas are expressly mentioned.

Now, according to the Pali Annals, the latter work existed before the Buddhist era. This has been, however, doubted ; but I believe there is not the same misapprehension as regards the Buddhist era itself. Whether the Buddhist annals came into existence afler or before the death of the sage, signifies nothing ; for if it can be shewn that Buddha, whose age is pretty clearly established, had spoken of the Yavanas, their identification with the Bactrian Greeks must indeed fall to the ground. Mr. Tumour intimated this in his elaborate introduction to the Mahawansa but failed to adduce any proof; and this omission has led orientalists to doubt the statement of that eminent Pali scholar, viz., that ^^ Yonas were mentioned long anterior to Alexander's invasions in the ancient Pali works.^' It becomes, therefore, a pleasing duty, and it is no less my privilege, to cite

NEW SERIES. VOL. III., NO. V. G

82 The Buddhist Scriptures and their Language. [April,

the authority referred to by Mr. Tumour. It is the following from the Majjhima Nikdyay where Gdtama is stated to have asked^ with special reference to the distinction of Aryaa and Ddsyas, which had gained ground in the ^^ foreign countries^'' such as Yona and Kamboja : —

'^ Assal^yana what thinkest thou of this ? Hast thou (not) heard that in Yona and Kamboja^ and in other foreign countries^ there are various Ayyas (superiors) and ddsas (inferiors) ; that superiors become inferiors^ and inferiors superiors?'^

Whilst the authority above quoted satisfactorily explains the reason why, as in the Hero and the Nymph, Kalid&sa has applied the term Yavana to '* menial females/' it also proves that the Yavanas were anti-Buddhistical.

Since^ however^ it is expressly stated that the Buddhist doctrines^ as well as the Vedae, were memorially preserved^ the existence of uniting itself at the date of the Buddhist era^ has been doubted by some.

Great as was and is the value set upon memory^ and great as was the extent to which that faculty was anciently taxed by oriental nations, yet we should not infer that writing was not known in Buddhistical Asia, as the Greeks concluded from the fact of the Hindus having administered justice from memory. Nor should we be led away with the belief that it was possible for man to retain in memory the Pittakattaya, with its voluminous commentaries. The question is not whether it is possible, in the abstract, to commit a thing to, and retain it in, memory ; but whether it is possible to do so to the extent which the Pitta* kattaya, etc., would indicate. A porter may carry a heavy load, but it is not possible to bear the weight of Adam's Peak. We may hear a rat squeaking at the distance of a few yards, but it is impossible to do so at the distance of as many hundred miles. So, likewise, with our other faculties, for instance the memory. The matter in St. Paul's Greek Epistles which Beza committed to memory, or that of the sermons which the Guamies could repeat with fidelity, bears indeed a very small proportion to the Tepitaka. If the Druids who carried in their memories a large number of verses, the whole extent of their twenty years' learn- ing cannot by any means approach the contents of the English Bible, which is leas than one-eleventh of the Buddhist Scriptures ; if the poems of Homer, which extend to but 80,000 lines, were recited from memory, we ought to bear in mind that they are [2,000,000 -H 80,000=:] less than a sixty-sixth of the Buddhist works, the greater portion of which, being in prose, could not, moreover, render that aid which the rhythm of poeUy bad afforded to the rhapsodists.

1863.] The Buddhist Scnptures and their Language. 83

Now^ reliable historj famishes ns with no account of such wondrous feats of memory as are stated in Hindu and Buddhist writings. There are none such recorded in our Holj Scriptures. From all that appears in the Bible, the mode by which.

. . . we» by tracing magic lines, are taught How to embody, and to colour thought . . .'

as known before the Israelites left Egypt (1491 b.c.) ; or, in other words, writing was used at a time when its existence among the Hindus does not clearly appear. Neither does it appear from the Holy Scriptures that memory was made the tablet of any of its doctrines : ** Write this, said the Lord unto Moses f' — and why? "/or a memorial/^ that it might not be fot^tten; — and where? in a book (Exod. xvii. 14). The ten commandments were not only proclaimed by the voice of Ood, but were engraved (written) by Him on tablets of stone. The author of the book of Exodus " took the book of the covenant, and read it in the audience of the people;^' he furthermore recorded all that was revealed to him by Gk>d in books, Man's memory was not thus regarded as unerring or sufficiently stable to dispense with a written record. The old Pali proverb, ^SU'Chi-pu-U mutio katan pandito bhaveyya/' is indeed well known.

Bnddhistical annals, moreover, prove beyond all manner of doubt that in the lifetime of Odtama, not only was writing practised ; not only that Buddhist doctrines were conveyed by means of it to different countries ; not only that laws and usages were recorded; and that little children were taught to write; but that even women were found able to do so. The various passages which authorize the above statement, also prove that the character used at the period above indicated, was the Nagari.

A question still remains for investigation, and which it may be convenient to dispose of here. What materials were employed for the purpose of writing at the period of the Buddhist era? All orientalists know that metal plates were used in connexion with writing. We are also accustomed in this country to examine ancient titles engraved upon metal. Numbers of these were also found in excavations in different parts of Asia. The royal present from Bimbisara to Pukkusati, was written upon a gold plate six feet by one and a half. This costly material, however, was selected to enhance the value of the gift, and to give weight to the opinion concerning the virtues of Buddha, whom he introduced to the notice of his friend. This, therefore, may be regarded as the exception and not as the rule ; for gold coidd not have been easily procured by poor scholars, and still

G 2

84 The Buddhist Scriptures and their Language. [April,

poorer mendicant priests. Copper and other metals^ though less costly than gold^ were yet selected only with a view to perpetuate state documents ; e.g., king Parakkrama bahu (a.b. 1200) made it a rule^ that '^ when permanent grants of lands were made to those who had performed meritorious services, such behests should not be evanescent^ like lines drawn upon water^ by being inscribed upon leaves, — a material which is subject to be de- stroyed by ants and white ants — but that such patents should be engraved on plates of copper, so as to endure long unto their respective generations/^

Copper is, moreover, an unwieldy substance. It could not be written upon with the same facility that we now experience in tracing a pen on paper. Except by engraving, no lasting impression could be made upon it ; and engraving was by no means practicable. It could not keep pace with the current of thought. Ordinary writing could not be effected by its means. If the Indians had a Pope who corrected a single line seventy times, the engraver would doubtless have had to perform a work of no ordinary labour. Inferior metal was not, therefore, the substance upon which the poet and the scholar drafted composi- tions. In Ceylon every Pansala, which is identical with the Indian lipi scUiy has a sand-board ; and this is used by poets for composition, and by children for exercises in writing. An author, while composing, usually wrote first on these tables for the con- venience of making alterations^ but when he had perfected his composition, the same was, it may be presumed, transferred to a more durable substance than the VelyMa,

For the preservation of one's writing a more permanent material was required than the sand or tablets of wax. Strips of wood and bamboo were used, and the use of the latter pro- bably led to the invention of paper in China from reeds. Yet paper, whether known at this time or not, was not used by Orientals, except by the inventors themselves. In the Hindu mind there was, as it is still seen, a feeling of aversion to paper. Books written on paper were probably in ancient times, as they are now, not generally used in Asia. Nor have we any reason to believe that paper was known in India at the Buddhist era. But skins were. It should again be borne in mind that origi- nally the Hindus were no slayers of animals, and though the hides of the Antelope, etc., came into use gradually, and though animal sacrifices doubtless produced a good deal of skins, yet there is no mention of hides as a writing material; and Buddhism, too, sets its face against all animal slaughter and the use of '' sheep skin, deer skin, and goat skin,'' which were originally forbidden as coverlets, were only permitted in foreign countries where the

1863.] The Buddhist Scriptures and their Language. 85

prohibition might be an impediment to the free dissemination of Buddhism. It may thence be concluded that some other material was employed for ordinary writing. Cloth doubtless formed one of the common substances for writing upon^ as we find it even at the present day in the Burmau empire : and M. Burnouf gives a story from the Divyu AvacUina, of the Nepal works^ to the effect that Bimbiskra sent to Rudray&na^ king of Rdruke^ a portrait of Odtama on cloth with the Buddhist formula of refuge written below it.

Though^ perhaps^ this is one of the fables which were in- vented by the heretics who had seceded from the Buddhist Churchy yet the fact that cloth was used in early times as a writing material may be relied upon. And it would seem from the travels of the early Chinese pilgrims^ and the mode in which Buddhist doctrines were circulated^ that some other material besides cloth was used for the ordinary purposes of writing, and this, we are expresssly told^ in reference to the correspondence of Bimbis&ra and Pukkus&ti^ was on panna or " leaf ;" and the discoveries in the topes of Nanddra and Hidda shew that the Tk? leaf was used for inscriptions in the Bactro-Pali character. It was, however, not this that was anciently used for writing purposes. Neither was it " the lotus leaf as smooth as a parrot's breast/' which K&lid&sa in his Sakuntald puts in the hands of the chief heroine of the play to write her love-letter on. Nor, indeed was it the birch-leaf which the same poet in his Vikra' morvasi places in the hands of Urvasi as a suitable material on which to inscribe her epistle. " The latter,'' says Professor Max Miiller, '' is used in the sense of a leaf or sheet of paper." And this indicates clearly that Kfilid&sa wrote long long after the Buddhist era, and long after the Egyptian papyrus had been known to the Asiatics.

That the leaf, however, which was anciently used by Asiatics for ordinary writing was the Talipot or the '* ola/' appears from the very language of G6tama Buddha ; and the instrument for writing was the Panna-Suchlya, " leaf-pin," or Stylus, From a Tamil work which Mr. William Ferguson quotes, in his interest- ing work on the Palmirah palm, it appears that ''the oldest Hindu author, Panini, mentions writing on dlas" I may also mention what Pliny states, that the most ancient mode of writing was upon the leaf of the palm tree : and the ola is expressly men- tioned as an ordinary writing material in the Buddhist annals.

From an investigation into the question, whether the Budd- hist doctrines had a written existence from the very commence- ment of the Buddhist era, I return to the question of the dialect in which they were originally expressed.

86 The Buddhist Scr^wres and their Language. [April,

Upon the aathority of the 'Hbetan anoab^ M. de Coroos names several languages into which the Baddhist Seriptnrea were early translated^ bat distinguishes one as Tathagatha's ''own language/' The earliest Pidi Orammar of Kachchayana, which is indeed extant in Ceylon as well as in Burmah^ also refers us to '' the language of Buddha/' for the elucidation of which he had oompil^ the Sandhiaq>pa.

The question arises — ^What was ttus language? That it was not the Sanskrit is generally believed. That it was not the language of which the Chinese pilgrims speak as the Fan, is also clear ; for^ apart from other evidence such as the existence of a dual number in the so-called Fan language, the same word Fan is used to designate Brahmdy clearly shewing that by it was meant the Sanskrit, or the sacred language of the Brahmans. The only other languages which may demand attention are, '' the language (as it is called) of the northern Buddhists/' and the Pali language of the Singhalese.

As to the first, we gather from the writings of a learned Hindu gentleman and of M. Burnouf, '' that the Baddhist lite- rature of Nepal, from which the sacred Scriptures of Tibet» Tartary, and China have been compiled, is in an ugly Sanskrit dialect, destitute of the niceties of the Sanskrit grammatical forms of declension and conjugation, etc. ; that the authors have sacrificed grammar to the exigencies of metre; that it is in a mixed style of prose and GcUhis ; that it bears a strong resem- blance to the Tantras of the fourth to the seventh century of the Christian era ; — and that it appears to be the production of men to whom the task of compilation was assigned without sufficient materials at their disposal.'' In riew of these pecmliarities M. Burnouf has pronounced the Nepal sacred Scriptures to be a *' barbarous Sanskrit, in which the forms of all ages, Sanskrit!, Pali and Prackrita appear to be confounded." Referring to the difference of language of the different parts of the Vaipulya, '' the highly developed Sutras," the same distinguished Orient- alist remarks, that it 'indicates in the clearest manner that there was ^ another digest/ " besides the compilations of the three great ecumenical convocations of the Buddhists, and that in his opinion the Nepal Scriptures comprise a fourth digest , which he " regards as the crude composition of writers to whom the Sans* krit was no longer familiar, and who endeavoured to write in m learned language they ill-understood, with the freedom which ia imparted by the habitual use of a popular but imperfectly de- termined dialect."

This question, as indeed many others of historical dia- racter, is solved by the Pali annals of Ceylon ; and here I

186S.] The Buddhist Scriptures and their Language. 87

shall present you a translation from the Dipivama ; the valae of the information which it imparts cannot be too much overrated.

Many individualsj viz., ten thousand Yajjian, sinful bhikkus, who had been expelled by the Theras, assembled together ; and, having formed another association^ held a council of the Dham^ ma. This is thence called the Maha Sangiii.

The bhikkus who held the Mah& Sangiti reduced the religion into confusion ; set aside the first compilation, and made another. They transferred the Suttans from their proper places to others, and perverted the sense and distorted the words of the five nika^ yas. They did so, ignorant of (the difference between) the general discourses and those (delivered) on particular occasions, and also (between) their natural and implied significations. They expressed in a different sense that which was otherwise declared ; and set aside various significations under the unwar- ranted authority (shadow) of words. They omitted one portion of the Suttans and the Vinaya of deep import, and substituted their own version of them and the text. They left out the Paru varan annotations, six books of the Abhidamma, the Patiaambida, the Niddesa and a portion of the Jatakas, without replacing anything in their stead. They, moreover, disregarded the nature of nouns, their gender, and other accidents, as well as the various requirements of style ; and corrupted them in various ways.

The above passage clearly indicates that there was a code different from the orthodox version of the sacred writings, which were authenticated at three different convocations, and that the Nepal version is a modification of that code. It also establishes that the compilation in question was made, not in the Tantra period above referred to — not in the age of Kanishka — ^but in the early part of the second century of the Buddhist era.

I shall now pass on to the Magadhi language.

The Sanskrit bad, it is believed, died out along with Brah- manism about six centuries b.c. At all events at the time when Buddhism arose, Sanskrit was no longer the vernacular speech of the people. Several dialects (and the Buddhist books speak of eighteen) had been in current use in India. The Pali was doubtless one of them, if not the principal Pr&krit language. It was properly the language of Magadha. Numerous Pali theological terms, which have peculiar significations clearly distinguishable firom those assigned to the same cognate expres- sions by the Sanskrit Brahmans, taken with numerous other circumstances in the history of Buddhism, prove beyond all doubt that the Pali was essentially the language of Gotama and of Buddhism. We find it retained till the time of Asoka, more than two centuries afterwards. The difference between the dia-

88 The Buddhist Scry^tures and their Language. [April^

lect of the inscriptions and that of the Pali texts^ as for instance the Dhammapada establishes nothing beyond the fact that the former as a spoken language had undergone changes^ whilst the latter, as is eyidenced from the Yedhamma hetuppabava stanza quoted in the inscriptions, became fixed in Ceylon as the sacred language of the Scriptures. The use of the Pr&krit for the inscriptions in preference to the Sanskrit, proves most satisfac- torily that it was '' the vernacular speech of the people in the same manner that the use of the local alphabets is evidence of a design to render the inscriptions accessible to the people/' ''We may therefore,^' says Professor Wilson, " recognize it as an ac- tually existent form of speech in some part of India, and might admit the testimony of its origin given by the Buddhists them- selves— ^by whom it is always identified with the language of Magadha or Behar/'

The' terms Pali and Magadha are names which are at the present day indifferently employed in Ceylon, Ava, Siam and even China to express the language of the Buddhists, and being confined to those countries the term Pali is not met with in any of the Indian writings.

Magadhi is the correct and the original name for the Pali. It was not called the Magadhi in consequence of the Mission of Asdka, the king of Magadha, to introduce Buddhism into Ceylon. It had received that name before the age of that monarch. It was so called after the ancient name of Behar. It was the ap- pellation for the ancient vernacular language of Magadha. It was the designation for the dialect of the Magadhas. — Magad^ hanan bhasa Magadhi.

Pali is comparatively a modem name for the Magadhi. It has not originated from '' the region called PaUutan the (sup- posed land of the Pa/t— our Palestine. It does not come from Palitur in Tyre— the so-called ' Pali tower or Fort.' '' It has no historical connection with " the Palatine hills of Rome.'' It was not called after the Pehlvi — the dialect of the Sassanian dynasty. It is not derived from " Palli a village,'' as we should now-a-days distinguish gunavari ''village,'' "boorish," from Urdu, the language of the Court." Nor does it indeed mean "root" or "original."

Like Ait, the word pali originally signified a " line," " row," " range," and was gradually extended to mean " Suttan," from a line, and to signify edicts, or the strings of rules in Buddha's its being like discourses or doctrines, which are taken from the Suttans. From thence it became an appellation for the text of the Buddhist Scriptures, as in the following passages : —

ThereyiUihariyk sabbe Palin viya Tamaggahun. "All the three preceptors held this compilation in the same estimation

1863.] The Buddhist Scripiwres and their Language. 89

as the text of the PUakattayaJ* Thera v^ehi pklehi padehe ▼yanjanihicha. " In the Thera discourses as in the text of the Pitakaitaya ; and in an expression as in a letter/' From thence again Pali has become the name of the M&gadhi language in which Buddha delivered his doctrines.

The Pali has also received the designation of Tanti, '^ the string of a lute/' its Sanskrit cognate being tantri. From that signification it seems to have been originally applied by the Brahmans to tantra, ^* a religious treatise teaching peculiar and mystical formula and rites for the worship of their deities or the attainment of superhuman power/' or^ '^that which is comprised of five subjects ; — the creation and destruction of the worlds the worship of the gods, the attainment of all objects, magical rites for the acquirement of six superhuman faculties and four modes of union with the spirit by meditation." The M&gadhas, before their secession from the Brahman Church, probably used the Mikgadhi term, tanti, in this sense; but when they embraced the Buddhist faith, they used it to signify the doctrines of 66- tama, as in the following passages : — (1 .) Sammk Sambuddho pi te pitakan Buddha vaehanan Tantin kropento Mkgadhi bks^yil iva aropesi — ''Buddha, who rendered his tepitaka words into Tanti (or tantra or doctrines), did so by means of the Magadhi language" — Vibhanga Atuva: (2.) Tivagga sangahan chatut- tinsa suttanta patimanditan chatu satthi bhknavkra parimknan tantin sangkyetva ayan digha nik^y 6 n^m&'ti. '* Having rehearsed the Tanti (the doctrines) which contain sixty-four banavara, embracing thirty-four Buttons composed of three classes (this was) named Dighauik&ya" — Bhodwansa. From its application to the Buddhist doctrines, Tanti has become a name for the sacred language itself of the Buddhists, viz., th6 Magadhi or Pali. Thus in Buddhagosa's Attakatha, ''Why was the first convocation held? In order that the Nidanan of the Vinaya pitaka, the merits of which are conveyed in the Tanti (Pali) language, might be illustrated. Thus, also, in the Balavatara in a part of the passage which answers to section fifty-eight in the Rev. B. Clough's version, where it is lefk untranslated : —

Eva ma&fik pi vififieyyk sanhitit tanti y^ hitk Sanhitk chita vannknan sannidha'byava dhknato.

That is to say, " In this wise know the rest of the combinations which are susceptible in the Tanti language. — Sanhita is the combination of letters without a hiatus."

The popular tradition amongst the native Pandits of Ceylon is that Pali is a sister dialect of the Sanskrit, having been pro- bably derived from one and the same stem.

90 The BuddhUt Scr^iures and their Languaffe. [Aprils

In considering this subject we notice that the Brahmms regard the Sanskrti to be of Divine origin, and as a direct reve- lation from their Creator. I am indeed aware that the Brah- man notion of the so-called Pr&krits (the M&gadhi included) being derived from the Sanskrit, has the countenance and sup* port of such eminent men as M. M. Bumouf and Lassen : but it is submitted with great deference that this position can no more be satisfactcMrily proved, than that Prakrit means ''derived/^ or that/^aitri^t, '^the mother/' is the daughter. Be this, how- ever, as it may, the pretensions of the Buddhists are as great as those of the Brahmans. The former claim f(Nr the Pali an antiquity so remote that they afSrm it to be ^' a language, the root of .all dialects, which was spoken by men and Brahm&s at the commencement of the creation by those who never before heard nor uttered human accents ; and also by all Buddhas/'

For the above we have not only the authority of the Pay6» gasiddhi, but the following from the Vibhanga Atuvd : —

*^ Tissadatta thera took up the gold broomstick in the B6 compound and requested to know in which of the eighteen bhasas he should speak ? He so (spake) from (a knowledge of those languages) not acquired through inspiration, but by actual study; for being a very wise personage be knew those several dialects by learning — ^wherefore, being one of (such) acquirements he so inquired. This is said here (to illustrate) that men acquire a bhasa (by study).

** Parents place their children when young either on a cot or a chair, and speak different things and perform different actions. Their words are thus distinctly fixed by the children (on their minds) (thinking) that such was said by him, and such by the other ; and in process of time they learn the entire lauguage. If a child, bom of a Damila mother and an Andhaka father, should first hear his mother speak, he would speak the Damila language ; but if he should hear his father first, he would speak the Andhaka. If, however, he should not hear them both, he would speak the Magadhi. If, again, a person in an uninhabited forest in which no speech (is heard) should intuitively attempt to articulate words, he would speak the very Magadhi. It predominates in all regions (such as) Hell ; the animal kingdom; the Petta sphere; the human world ; and the world of the devas. The remaining eighteen languages, Otta Kirath4, Andhaka, Tonaka, Damila, etc., undergo changes — but not the Magadhi, which alone is stationary, as it is said to be the speech of Brahmas and Ariyas. Even Buddha, who rendered his tepitaka words into doctrines, did so by means of the very Magadhi ; and why ? Because by doing so it (was) easy to acquire their (true) significations. Moreover, the sense of the words of Buddha, which are rendered into doctrines by means of the Magadhi language, is conceived in hundreds and thousands of ways . by those who have attained the pati sambidha — as soon as they reach the ear, or the instant the ear comes in contact with them ; but discourses ren- dered into other languages are acquired with much difficulty."

1863.] 1%e BuddfM Scriptwrea and their Language. 91

Now^ it is a £Eict that ''all mde nations are distinguished by a boastfU and turgid vanity/' They cannot speak of their race or of their sacred languages without assigning to them an origin the remotest in the world. In ^' a spirit of adulation and hyper* bcde '* they exalt them as high as the object of their adoration and worship. This is peculiarly the case with Eastern nations.

Although such extravagantly high pretensions are by them« selves of no value, yet when some of these traditions are partially supported by the concurrence of other testimony^ such as the high antiquity of the Pali» its refinement, its comparative sim- plicity both verbally and grammatically, and its relationship to the oldest language of the Brahmans, from which their present dialect has been Sanskritized : — we may, by a judicious exercise of our judgment in separating fact from fable, and reality from fiction, receive them, I apprehend, to the extent to which they are confirmed. Thus the traditions of both the Brahmans and the Buddhists in respect of their respective languages may be received, so far as they are proved to be, two dialects of high antiquity derived from a source of which scarcely any traces are to be found at the present day.

The Pali, according to tradition, was brought into Ceylon by our first monarch Wijaya, shortly after the time of 06tama; and although Professor Lassen regards this as a question involved in obscurity, yet the name of the " Conqueror " and the desig- nation of many a town, edifice and mountain — nay, the very name ^'Tambapanna'' given to the Island by Wijaya, and which we find was shortly afterwards used by the Indian monarch Asoka in the rock inscriptions, would lead to the inference that the Pali was the language of the first colonists.

There is another circumstance which may be here noticed. The birth-place of the first settlers of Ceylon was Lala. It is identical with Lata or Lada; and Dandi, the author of Kavya- darsa, says that even in comparatively a modern age, that of the dramas, the language of Lata as well as of Banga (which latter is only a different pronunciation of Vanga, and merely another name for Gowda) was usually the Prakrit. His authority goes further, for he places the language of Lala in the same dass as that of Oowda, Surasena, etc. ; and his commentator explains the et cmUra to mean the Magadhi (Pali) and Panchala (the Zend). Hence^ all circumstances considered, it is very clear that die Pali was the language of the band from Lala who colonized Ceylon, or rather a modification of it which bore the nearest relation to such languages as the Siiraseni and the Zend — at all e?ents a so-called Prakrita dialect ; and therefore a language of the Ariyan aad not of the South Indian class*

92 The Buddhist Scriptures and their Language. [April,

But the best evidence of the hct is that furnished by a com- parison of the Singhalese with Pali and other Indian dialects.

I have already^ though somewhat doubtfully, intimated my belief that the Singhalese belonged to the northern family of languages. My later researches only tend to confirm that belief, and they enable me moreover to affirm that '^ the most unequi- vocal testimony^' to which Professor Spiegel and Sir Emerson Tennant refer, tends to but one conclusion, viz., that ''the Singhalese, as it is spoken at the present day, and still more strikingly as it exists as a written language in the literature of this island, presents no affinity to the Dekanese group of languages.^' — It is, however, impossible to do justice to the question within the circumscribed limits of a lecture of one hour's duration, and I must, therefore, return to the subject.

It would appear from both the Singhalese and Tibethan annals that even in the lifetime of Buddha, there were many dialects prevalent in India. As already observed, eighteen dialects are spoken of in the Vibhanga Atuva; and preference is, of course, given to the Mkgadhi. The orthodox version of the Buddhist Scriptures, written in the last mentioned dialect, was doubtless brought by Mahindu [in 807 B.C.] to Ceylon, where it has since remained unchanged, as its phraseology abundantly testifies.

Although a dead language, the Pali has been carefully cul- tivated in Ceylon. From the period it became the sacred lan- guage of the Singhalese, kings and princes have encouraged its study ; nobles and statesmen have vied with each other to excel in its composition ; and laymen and priests have produced some of the most elegant works in it. The names of Batuwantudkve, Hikkaduwe, Lank^oda, Dodanpahala, Yal&ne, Bentota, Kah&ve, and Sumangala, amongst a host of others, are indeed familiar to Pali scholars, as those of the learned who are even now able to produce compositions by no means inferior to those of a Buddhagdso or a Parakkrama, though, like the modern Sanskrit, certainly more artificial than the more ancient writings. Not only in Ceylon, but in the Burman empire are there scholars who excel in Pali. Of the writings, especially of the present king of Slam, I cannot speak but in the highest terms of admi- ration. There, as in Ceylon, the Pali is most assiduously culti- vated amongst the priesthood. But, as is not the case in Ceylon, whole libraries are there replaced annually by new ones, after they have undergone the careful inspection of learned men.

Mr. Hardy states that the high state of cultivation to which the Pali language was carred, and the great attention that has been paid to it in Ceylon^ may be inferred from the fact that a

1863.] 7%e Buddhist Scriptures and their Language. 98

list of works in tbe possession of the Singhalese, which he found dnring his residence in this Island, included thirty-five works on Pali grammar, some of them being of considerable extent. And what is still more remarkable the Singhalese, which had been formed out of the Pali has eagerly, though ineffectually, sought to be '^ set aside " for the language of Gdtama. It is expressly stated by the author of the Mahavansa (a.d. 459 — 477) that in that work the object aimed at is the setting aside of the Singhalese language in which the former history was composed. Again the design of the Pali version .of the Singha- lese Daladdvansa (a.d. 1196 — 1200) is said to be the same.

In the proportion, however, in which Pali has been cultivated and enriched in Ceylon has it declined in Asia, and with it the religion which was taught through its medium.

The shock which Buddhism received in those countries in which it most flourished (when such works as the Kalpa Sutra and LaUta Vistara began to make their appearance), must have been great indeed to render necessary, as we have already seen^ the special mission of a Buddhagosa to Ceylon. His trancdations were so much admired, that in very early times they found their way from Ceylon to Burmah, the only country, we believe, where they are still preserved in the int^rity of our originals. Not only these but our historical works, it seems, had been applied for, and obtained by the Burmese ; and we find, from a valuable oottection of Pali books, brought down in 1812 by the learned Nadoris de Silva, Modliar, from that country, that they had preserved even the commentary on the Mahavansa with compa- ratively greater accuracy than ourselves. Fortunate, indeed, it was for Ceylon that the Burman empire had borrowed Lanka's Pali books, for when the literature of this Island was nearly annihilated by the cruelties of some of our Malabar monarchs (and we had, indeed, amongst them many an Edward in., who laid his ruthless hands on the literary and religious archives of the nation) ; the repositories of Siam and Amarapora failed not to supply our deficiencies, and to furnish us with the meaas for placing our Pali literature at least upon a respectable footing.

The number of Pali books on Buddhism far exceeds the lexical and grammatical works; and it is remarkable that the Pali literature of the Singhalese is not deficient in other branches of Oriental sciences. It presents a proud array of extensive volumes on prosody, rhetoric, medicine, history, etc. Of all these, however, the historical works possess an all-absorbing interest. For I may safely assert that no country in the East can boast of so correct a history of its own affairs and those of

94 The Buddhist Seripture$ and their Langtrnge. [Aprils

Asia generally^ as Ceylon. The PhcenioianB^ who^ as yon are aware^ had influenced the civilisation of a very large portion of the human race by their great inventions and discoveries, by their colonies established in every quarter of the globe, and above all by the extensive oommeroe which they had carried on, have left nothing behind except the alphabet which they had invented. The Persians, a very interesting and a very ancient race of people and to whom we naturally look for historic infor- mation have little beyond their Zendaveeta, two chapters of irhich contain some traditions of their own. The Hindus, a people who had a literature of their own from a period long before the Singhalese became a nation, have no historical records, and their scanty '^ fragmentary historical recollections/' which have been embodied with their religious works, such as the Puranas, present themselves in the language of a prophecy, and npon their bases no trustworthy chronological calculations can be made. In the Vedae again, which are perhaps older than any Ceylonese Buddhist writings^ and which are supposed to ''furnish the only sure foundation on which a knowledge of ancient and modem India can be built up,'' there is a lament- able lack of historic sense, which has ever been one of the most remarkable characteristics of the Indian mind.

The Chinese, who boast of a descent from times remoter than the days of Adam, have no historical writings whidi can throw the smallest particle of light npon the stairs of the East.

In the country of Magadha, so greatly renowned as the birthplace of Buddhism, and the still more interesting language (the Pali) in which it was promulgated — a kingdom, moreover, which dates its origin ftx>m the time of the M ah& BhiLrat, we have no records of a historical character beyond religious in- scriptions sculptured on stones and grants of land engraved on copper plates. These '^unconnected fragments,'' beyond serving to fix the dates of particular kings, furnish us at present with neither history nor matter sufScient to help us to a general chronology. The Bactrian coins, again, afibrd us the same kind of information with which the monumental inscriptions furnish us, but little or nothing beyond that. " The only Sanskrit com- position yet discovered in all Asia to which the title of histoiy can with any propriety be applied, is the Bajatarangani*' a oom- paratively modem work which was compiled a.d. 1148; and this again does not bear any comparison, either in point of the mat- ter it contains or in the interest which attaches to the subjects it treats upon, with the Singhalese Historical Records,

The genuine historic soil exhibited by the Singhalese from

1863.] The BuddMst Scripturei and their Language. 95

tbe yery time they colonised Ceylon^ far surpaases that of all other Indian nations.

The love which the Singhalese had for such porsuits was participated by their rulers themselves; and^ whilst tradition asserts that some of our early Singhalese Annals from which the Mahawansa was compiled^ were the works of some of our monarchs, history records the facts that ^^the national annals were &om time to time compiled by royal command :" and that the labours of " the historians were rewarded by the state with grants of lands/^ The interest which our sovereigns took in this part of the national literature was so great indeed^ that many a traveller and geographer of the middle ages was peculiarly atruckj as ^' a trait of the native rulers of Ceylon/^ with the fact of the employment by them of persons to compile the national annals. And though comparatively few are the records which the ravages of time and the devastating hand of sectarian oppo- sition have left behind^ they nevertheless excel in matter and interest all the annals of Asia. ^' As the first actual writing and the first weli authenticated inscriptions in India are of Buddhist origin/^ so, likewise, the first actual chronicle as well as the most authentic history in the whole of the Eastern hemisphere may be traced to a Cetlon-Bvddhistic source.

Sir James Emerson Tennant says^ and says truly, that ^^ the Mahawansa stands at the head of the historical literature of the East, unrivalled by anything extant in Hindostan, the wildness of whose chronology it controls.^^

When, for instance, the capacious mind of Sir William Jones seized with avidity the identity of Chandragupta and Sandracot- ius, and thence discovered the only key for unlocking the history and chronology of Asia, the Annals of Ceylon were not without their use in removing the doubts which were conjured up in the imagination of antiquarians. When the indefatigable labours of a Prinsep enabled him to decipher the rock inscriptions of Piya- dasi or Devananpiya, the discovery could not with certainty have been applied either to fix the proper date of the Buddhistic era, or to reduce the chronology of Asia to its proper limits without the aid of the Singhalese records ; the Dipdvansa in particular, whidi identified Devanapiya with Asoka. When the obscure dialect of the pillar inscriptions presented philological difficulties, the Ceylon Pali Mahawansa alone served as '' an infallible dic- tionary'^ for their elucidation. When again the Cashmirean history put forth an extravagant chronology, Ceylon chronicles alone enabled Mr. Tumour to effect an important and valuable correction to the extent of 794 years, and thereby to adjust the chronolc^y of the East. When, lastly, the deep penetrating

96 The Buddhist Scriptures and their Language, [April,

mind of a Bumoaf^ from an examination into the Nepal version of the Buddhist Scriptures^ conceived the idea of ^'a fourth digest of the Buddhists^ apart from the compilations of the three con- vocations; the Singhalese Annals, and above all the Dipctwansa alone, furnished the proof required for establishing the con- jecture.

Such were, as are, the claims of the Pali literature of this island upon the attention of the learned in Europe. Yet it is a melancholy fact that for a very long period of time the greatest indifference was manifested in its study by the savans of Europe.

When more than forty years ago Bask wrote, the greatest misconception prevailed amongst Europeans on all Oriental sub- jects. Eastern languages were not extensively cultivated. A gloom enveloped the science of Comparative Philology. Inac- cessible was the path to Eastern history. Even the Sanskrit, the language in the highest state of cultivation now-a-days was then but imperfectly known to the European world. Some considered it a derivative of the Zend, and others treated it as a creature of the Pali. Little, if anything, was definitely investi- gated of the latter. The relation which Sanskrit bore to the Prakrit was imperfectly investigated, and was at the time Wilson translated Vtckrama and Urvasi far from being understood ; and when the researches of Lassen and Bumouf, ^' with that love of novelty and that honourable ambition which greatly distin- guished them,^^ brought to light the Nepal books of Buddhism, even the names of their Pcdi versions were unknown to Eu- ropeans. The distinction between the Arya and the Dekhanese groups of languages was not well ascertained. The Tamil was supposed to have been an offshoot of the Sanskrit. The Andhra merely existed as a book name. Between it and the Dravida no relationship was established, much less was the identity of Dravida and Damila recognized. The Singhalese was not known in Europe.

When, more than thirty years ago, Hodgson announced the discovery of the Nepal Scriptures in a dialect intermediate be- tween the Pali and Sanskrit, and the indefatigable Bumouf commenced their examination eight years afterwards, an impres- sion was formed hostile to the real merits of the Pali or the Magadhi, and this, far from being removed, was indeed con- firmed by the unjust opinion of Colebrooke, one of those patriotic followers of Sir William Jones, who devoted his chief attention to the Sanskrit literature — when he pronounced the Pali to be '' a dialect used by the vulgar,'^ and identified it with " the Apab- hransa, a jargon destitute of regular grammar.^'

This hasty expression of opinion by one so highly esteemed

1863-3 "^^^ Buddhist Scriptures and their Language, 97

for his deep researches in the Indian literatare^ has not^ however, been without its ill effects. It checked^ though for a time^ the current of inquiry. It discouraged those who might have other- wise successfully pursued their researches in the Pali. It even damped the energies of the nations of continental Europe^ who "are the most diligent cultivators of Oriental languages.^' Not- withstanding the investigations of Weber, Benfey, Tausboll, KuhuUy and others of whose labours, so far as we know them in this remote part of the globe, we cannot speak but with the highest terms of commendation — the study of the Pali is yet, I apprehend, far &om being extensively pursued by Europeans; and the full extent of the progress which that language has made in Ceylon, and its refinement and purity are imperfectly appreciated even by those who have made Philology their favourite study. Whilst numerous grammatical works in the Sanskrit and other Indian dialects have been published from time to time both in India and Europe, not a single treatise on Pali grammar has yet appeared, if we except the translation of Balavatara made in Ceylon; and although several Koshas or lexicons have been likewise published of the former, it is indeed a fact that no Dictionary of the latter language has yet made its appearance in any part of the world save Ceylon, where too, firom many local disadvantages, nothing has been effected beyond the Abhidhanap Padipika and the Dhatu Manjusa, published by the Bev. B. Clough ; and a Pali Dictionary (still in M.S.) com- piled by the Rev D. J. Gogerley, the Principal of the Weslcyan Mission in Ceylon. When, again, we perceive that a material advance has been made by Europeans in the study of the Sans- krit ; and the historical, doctrinal and metaphysical works per- petuated in that tongue, have been nearly all translated into European languages, it is indeed not a little to be regretted that in those branches of learning no Pali works have been published (if we except the Dhammapadan and Kammawakya) beyond the Mahawansa and various selections from Pali writers, contributed by the Honourable George Tumour, Mr. L. de Zoysa Modliar, and the Rev. D. J. Gogerley.

Amongst all the monuments of Pali literature, the sacred books of Buddha present such a profitable subject of study to the Christian missionary on account of the matters therein treated of — which, when thoroughly examined, cannot fail to produce the most valuable materials for the displacement of Buddhism — that one would have naturally thought it had en- gaged his most earnest attention both in Ceylon and the Burman empire. It is however not so. If we except the valuable con- tribution of the Rev. C. Bennet, of the American Baptist Union

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III.. NO. V. H

98 The Buddhist Ser^iures and their Language, [April,

in Bnnnah, entitled the Malahmgara ffattoo, and the Life of Gotama by a Roman Catholic bishop (I believe Brigandet is his name) there is nothing to reconnt beyond the labours of the Rev. B. Clough, the Rev. D. J. Gogerly of Ceylon, and the Rev. P. D. Silva of the Wesleyan Mission, to whose valuable researches the poblic are highly indebted for various Bnddhistical tracts in the pages of periodical literature.

It will be thus seen that the merit of Pali research belongs to those connected with Cevlon, where the Pali books have been preserved with the reverence accorded to the Buddhist religion. So accurately correct are our books in comparison with the same works on the continent of India, that Mr. Hodgson, who had been long of a different opinion, was latterly compelled to admit '' that the honours of Ceylonese literature and of the Pali lan- guage were no longer disputable.''

CaraUtc MSS. — The Rassian GoYemment has porchasedi for tbd sum of lOOfOOO silver roubles, the celebrated collection of Caraitic maouscripts of the learned collector, Abraham Firkowitch. After the collection had Decn duly examined by different savants^ and pronounced to be highly important for the criticism of the text of the Holy Scriptures, for paleography ana chronology in general, and for the history of {k)uthem Russia m particular, it was delivered as property to the public Imperial Library. The Caraitic scholar, Abraham Firkowitch, has devoted, we hear, thirty years of his life to the acquisition of these rare manuscripts. As early as 1830, during his stay in Constantinople, be succeeded in finding some valuable Hebrew (^ices. This seems to have g^ven him the impulse lor his untiring exertions in this field. Ue sacrificed his fortune in the search for rare and old manuscripts ; bore without murmuring long separations from his family ; subjected himself to all sorts of priTations, and often endangered his life. Mr. Firkowitch has travelled through, and explored, the Crimea and the Caucasus in all directions ; he has lived for months in churchyards and burial-places to study and copy old inscriptions; he has penetratea into synagogues and other likely places, where the Jews used to hide [x>ok8 on sadden attacks or invasions from the enemy ; he never wearied of the straggle with fanaticism and barbarity. Thus he succeeded in collecting one hundred and twenty-four Hebrew original copies of the Old Testament, which are older than all other Hebrew codices in any of the libraries of Europe. Twenty-five of the manuscripts in Mr. Firkowitch's collection were written before the ninth, and twenty before the tenth century. Five of the manuscripts on leather are maintained to be the oldest of all documents on the Scriptures hitherto discovered. The whole collection consists of forty-seven rolls of the Pentateach, on leather and parchment; seventy-seven codices of the Holy Bcriptures; thirty-three translations in different languages; two hundred and seventy-two works of Caraitic authors ; five hundred and twenty-three works of Rdbbinist authors ; two hundred and fifty miscellaneous letters and articles ; seven hundred and twenty-two inscriptions ; three hundred documents regarding the history of the Caraim in Western Russia, and three hundred old plans of difforont Russian towns. — Athenceum,

1863.] ( 99 )

THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD.

What is the Bible ? This has become the question of questions. It is the question of learned and unlearned. All who think at all feel how vital it is. But it is a question by no means answered : nor will it be, perhaps, for years. Whoever, there- fore, has an answer which gives him rest, if not full satisfaction, has a right to tell it to others.

The common answer, and we believe the true one, is — The Bible is the Word of Qt)d. But every one must feel the vague- ness of that answer. Men, who by no means agree in their views of the book, agree in giving it this name. Our aim must be to gain a more definite idea of what is meant by the expression, the Word of God.

That the Bible is the Word of God this is not the place to prove. Assuming that the common definition, expressing the common faith, is just, our work is to understand the definition. Every question must be narrowed and dealt with in parts, to be understood. So the reader may consider that the Bible has already been shewn to be the Word of God — which for the majority of thoughtful, earnest readers of the Bible itself, will be no unreasonable demand, and to most a welcome one ; for who is not wearied with proofs that it is not the Word of man ? — or he may lay this paper aside.

The Bible is the Word of God. But what do we mean by the phrase — Word of God.

What is a word ? The manifested mind of its speaker. It shews to others the thoughts, the feeling, and the will of its utterer. This, indeed, is not true of all words, but it is the proper meaning of a word. There are lying words and defective woids : words which the speaker makes to hide his meaning, and words which will not convey his meaning. But this is only the ease with a wicked or a weak speaker. A good man^s words never lie^ and a great man^s words never fail: the good man strives to tell his meaning, and the great man tells his. So if a speaker be both good and great, his words will be his manifested mind. Hence when God speaks His mind is clearly revealed.

But since a word is the name of that in which the mind is manifested, it may pass beyond the verbal utterance, as only one mode of mental manifestation, and become the name of other manifestations not made through words. And since one being can become the most perfect revealer of another, he may be named the expression of that other — his word. We have our ideal men — ^men who actualize our highest thoughts : and we

H 2

100 The Bible as the Word of God. [April,

have oar representative men — men who stand for ns as a word stands for our thoughts — men who express us. Now God has His personal revealer — Him in whom He sees Himself reflected to Himself and manifested to others. This is His Eternal Son, who, because of His being His Father^s manifestation, is called emphatically the Word.

The metaphorical use of the expression word is carried still further. If a man's words manifest his mind, much more do his deeds and his works. "Actions," we say, *^ speak louder than words." Language is local and changing; action is universal and abiding. The meaning of a tear is known to all, but the meaning of the word that names it is known only to some. So works are made to speak as well as words. "The heavens are teUing the glory of Ood ; and the firmament sheweth his handi- work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. Without speech and without words, without their voice being heard , (yet) into all the earth is gone forth their sound, and unto the end of the world their ends." — Psalm xix. 1—4.

Yet in order to define the phrase, the word of Ood, a remark upon the di£Ferent kinds of manifestation is needed. Manifesta- tions are either immediate or mediate — without or with means. Almost all human manifestations are made through means ; for few men can, if we may so say, flash themselves upon others directly with no instrument ; they need the help of their outer nature. And, further, it is evident that of mediate manifestations there must be diflcrent degrees. We have need to mention two —-immediate-mediate and mediate-mediate. A man's own words and works, coming directly from himself, are his immediate- mediate manifestations — there is no interposing medium be- tween the medium he uses to express himself, and us to whom the expression is made. On the other hand, a man's words and works when not heard or seen by us, but made known to us through another, are mediate-mediate manifestations — there is another medium interposed between us and him. A man who knows English but not Oreek, can have an immediate-mediate manifestation of Shakespear's mind (supposing the test be faithful), but only a mediate-mediate manifestation of the mind of Homer, for he must depend on another man for his translation.

A word, then, is the manifestation of the mind of its owner, whether the manifestation be through language or through a person, or through works : and manifestations are immediate or mediate, which latter are divided into immediate-mediate and mediate-mediate.

1863.] The Bible as the Word of God. 101

I Now let us bring these remarks to bear upon the Bible. As

I the Word of God it mast be the manifested mind of Ood. But

of manifestations there are immediate and mediate. To which of these divisions does the Bible belong ? It is given by words and written by men, it, therefore, is a mediate manifestation. But apart from its being in words and human writing, it must be mediate; for God the Father, of whom it is a revelation, makes himself known only through His Son. The Son is the one Mediator between God and man. His nature — His being — apart from His works, is the primal manifestation of the Eternal God (Heb. i. 3). He is the Word, all other words are through Him. But His nature is too pure for man to know. He must reveal Himself through media or we cannot know Him. One day we shall see Him as He is, but then we shall be like Him. Now we must see Him '' through a glass darkly .''

I " For words, like nature, half reveal

I And half conceal the soul withiu."

We could not bear to see him face to face. He must veil his I Godhead or we should die. To favoured men He has made at

times fuller manifestations, but then they have only seen through the crevice of the rock the lingering rays of the glory that had passed by.

And this brings us to note that the Bible is a mediate-mediate manifestation. If the Son of God revealed Himself to us we should have an immediate-mediate manifestation of the Father, but since He reveals Himself through media, we have a mediate- mediate manifestation. But if any one believes that Christ does immediately reveal himself, the question, as to the Bible being a mediate-mediate manifestation, will remain unaltered. For however Christ may reveal himself in the spirit of His believer, it is evident that the Bible is a revelation of Him mediated by man. The Bible is essentially a history or record. It is a record of the works and words of the Eternal Word, and, there- fore, a history of the manifestations of the Father made by Him. This we shortly express when we call it a mediate-mediate manifestation of the nature of God.

But we naturally ask, — Is this definition perfect ? Does it not fail in the essential point of distinguishing the Bible from all other books? We have histories of creation, histories of nations, histories of holy men, and all of these are histories of the work of Christ ; but we do not call these the Word of God. Wherein lies the difference ? The difference is twofold ; and an illustration will make it clear. A faithful, worthy history of Shakespear's life, following his genius through all its stages,

102 The Bibk as the Word of God. [April,

laying bare his inner life in its most hidden chambers, shewing the man as he thought and felt and wrote and lived, — most be a history unlike all other histories, for there is only one Shakespear, and must be written by a historian unlike all other historians, for only a second Shakespear could write Shakespear^s history. A poet alone can understand a poet ; the prince of poets can be understood by the prince of poets alone, and only he who under- stands a man can write his history. The Bible is a history, but the history of a greater than Shakespear. It is the history of the Son of God. It is his history drawn from his works, — from his works amongst the folk Israel, and in the early church. What must such a history be when it is written ? And what must the historian be who wrote it? With whose spirit must he be filled who understands such a worker ?

But still the question comes — suppose a man writes the his- tory of the working, and, therefore, of the life of the Son of God in his own soul, would not such a history be as the Bible ? To this question we need not reply, for it only supposes a case. Yet if the case were actual, the answer is at hand — the Israelites and the first Christians shew in their history the works of the Son of God as no other nation and no other persons shew them. To them were committed the oracles of God. They were chosen witnesses of the Lord. In them the extraordinary working of God was shewn in signs, and wonders, and powers. And since the Lord wrought in them as he wrought in no others, the his- tory of his working must be like no other history.

The Bible is, therefore, a special mediate-mediate manifesta- tion of the nature of God; or, in other words, the Bible is the his- tory or record of the revelation of God, made by his Son through his words and works to the Israelites and the first Christians.

Every definition should be an explanation. If the above be worth anything, it will find its justification in the light it will cast upon the book. We believe the Bible is the Word of God. It is so unlike all other books that are not outgrowths of it j it is so much higher, holier, tenderer than they, that we cannot call it man's word. But yet, though we must call it God's Word, we do it in the face of many difficulties and by hushing many doubts. Whence come those doubts and difficulties ? Do they come from our not understanding what God's Word must be— from our looking for something else than is properly contained in the idea of the Word of God ? If so, then with a proper understanding of what the term means, the difficulties wfll dis- appear. We have sought for such an understanding. Let us test its worth.

''The Bible is so unlike what we imagine an oracle should

1863.] The Bible as the Word qf God. 103

be. It is mainly historical in its subject matter^ and owes its origin to historical causes. It is not a grand^ lofty, universal history, but a history of a single nation^ and of a company of individuals chiefly, and only incidentally wider. And in treating this small part of history there is much that seems beneath the dignity of history, and where this is not so the history is like all other narratives of facts. It is true the facts are often unlike >rhat are met with elsewhere, but it is the book we call the Word of God, and not the £acts.^' This and much more is urged upon us.

The reply to it all is at hand. The facts are the "Word of God. The Bible is the record of the facts, and, therefore, it is ahio the Word of God. Christ reveals his Father in the life of a people, and how can the revelation be made known to all but through a history of that people ? '' My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;'' " I must work/' are the words of Him who made known the Father. And again He says, " If I had not done among them the works -which no other man hath done, they had not had sin '/' *' believe me for the work's sake ;'' " the works bear witness of me.'' The doctors and the Pharisees may talk, bat He will work. Man could have a revelation in words — in words that change, that all cannot read, that few can under- stand, and that fewer still can feel ; but God will make a revela- tion in works — in works that abide like the everlasting hills, whose language is as wide as the language of the blue heavens, whose meaning the child can understand as easily as the meaning of his mother's eye, whose majesty must awe the rebel, and whose tenderness must subdue the hardened. And if the re- velation is to be in history, man would write a history that was never Uved. The artificiality, the emptiness, the formality, the bombast philosophy of the nineteenth century after Christ shall belong to the nineteenth century before Christ. The history cannot be inspired because Abraham talks not according to the immutable rules of talking, as laid down by a modern man of £ftshion, and his tent manners are not those of the modern drawing-room, and because Moses does not know the principles of the Hegelian philosophy and does not describe to the unedu- cated Israelites how ^' God made the heavens and the earth " in the nomenclature of modern astronomy and geology. How much wiser is " the foolishness of Crod than the wisdom of man?" Which history of the creation of the world teaches to a child or an uneducated man most effectively the true cause and meaning of that act, that of Moses or that of a modern geologist ? After reading the history of Moses he feels this is God's world; after reading that of the geologist — this is the world of eternal

104 The Bible as the Word of God. [April,

unalterable law. Which teaches him the tmth? Which teaches the man of science the tmth ? How comes it that the latter says, — a creation is impossible ? May it not be that even he^ with all his science, cannot read the ^^ record of the rocks'^ so well as Moses and the little child that prays his prayer to the " Great God who made heaven and earth ?'*

" For wisdom dealt with mortal powers, Where truth in closest words shall fail. When truth embodied in a tale Shall enter in at lowly doors.''

Let philosophers talk their talk abont the Absolate, the AH, the Ego, but we will know the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. They treat our histories as childish, and fit only for children and savages. But do they know their absolute? Does He or It hear their prayer ? How high is the God of the Bible above the brain-spun notion of these wise ones I — the God of Abraham and of Moses, and of David and of Elijah 1 the God of promise, of salvation, of continual resort, of jealous holiness 1

Taking the Bible as essentially the history of God's revela- tion made in the nation of the Israelites and in the church of the first century, the difficulties about the book felt by an earnest^ thoughtful mind, will, in a great measure, disappear. It will be seen that while God is in all history, into this He comes and abides and works that the world may know his name. He shews himself in the patriarch's tent as the household God ; in the soldier's camp, as the God of armies ; in the king's palace as the king of kings. The Son of God took upon himself the form of a servant when he became incarnate, but before he had humbled himself to every form of man's daily life, his rightful seat was the '' high and lofty place," but yet he dwelt with the humble. He could shew himself as our God — our God in all time of joy and in all time of sorrow ; in all our work and in all our sport. Such a God man needs. That he has such a God man deeply needs to know. God reveals himself as such in his chosen people, and all men can read the history of the revelation. And it is a grand history, and a tender history. There is the majesty of Sinai and the mournfulness of Calvary : the voice of law iu darkness, thunder, fire ; the voice of mercy from the breaking heart of the dying Saviour praying, " Father, forgive them ; they know not what they do."

There are two books, but there is only one history ; there are two peoples, but only one manifestation. The second his- tory is only a continuation and realization of the first. The second is fuller than the first, but not distinct from it. The two

1868.] The Bible as the Word of God. 105

make a whole, while neither is complete without the other. One must know the Israel of the Old Testament to understand fully the Israel of the New. The first is a type and prophecy of the second. The first is a revelation of creation and redemption from Egypt, foretelling the new creation and the redemption from the spiritual Egypt which are revealed in the second. The first is a grand unfinished picture, in a few impressive, strong lines ; the second is the same grand picture finished, the stern- ness softened by the tenderest colours. In the first revelation, we see God creating by the omnipotent fiat ; in the second, we see him redeeming by an almighty yet sufiering love. There is ''the mighty hand and the outstretched arm/' making known in signs and wonders the greatness of its power; here ''the mighty hand and the outstretched arm '' is resigned to the cross and the nail, making known the fulness of the love that rules it. In the Old Testament, God is revealed especially as the God of national and social life ; in the New, especially as the God of individual and spiritual life ; and neither revelation is complete without the other. God is the God of all our life ; he is working in us in all our work, and a true history of his work- ing must BO exhibit him.

And this history of God's work in the Israelites and the early church, whether he wrought in the spirits of single men, or in nature, or the world without, is no human theory of history and no compilation from the sources. The facts are given and not opinions ; the sources themselves are laid before us and not a man's rendering of them. The God of Israel did wonders in Egypt, and the wonders are told to us. He wrought mightily in the spirit of his servants, and their " experience " is given us in the Psalms. The writers of the Bible were content to let God speak for himself, knowing that their feeble words would but mar the impression of his works. It is left to a later and a wiser age to help God to express himself I And through the letters of the New Testament we are brought into the very centre of the Holy Spirit's work. Their writers unconsciously give a revelation to the world. The Old Testament is to them the inspired book, and they by no means think that to their poor words such a worth is to be given as is now given. They write to the churches committed to their charge what they themselves have '' tasted, and handled, and felt," and what they wish others may feel too ; but they know not that they write for the world. Herein is the worth of what they write. It is a record of what God has done within them and within others, and a record of the words he has spoken in their souls. It is God's revelation that is given us. * We see him work and hear him speak. This is so

106 The Bible as the Word of God, [April,

even with that letter which is only too often treated as a treatise — the letter of Paul to the Romans. It was farthest from his thoughts to sit down and write a treatise upon justification by faith. Those outer causes he must needs write to the Romans ; and when he writes he must needs write of that which fills his hearty and his head, and his hands — " the gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of God unto salvation.'^ That thought leads his mind whither it will. A wonderful revelation of what God is and does, and is and does in man and in creation, is the result. Justification by faith forms an essential part of the letter, but by no means all.

There we must stay. Let us only hear the sense of what has been said. God chose the Israelites and the early church to be the special subjects of his manifestations in both words and works, and especially in works, and men filled with the spirit that wrought in the nation and in the church, recorded the works and words of God ; and the Bible is the record. That the Bible is historical and only sparingly and somewhat incidentally dogmatical, is no ground for doubting it to be the Word of God, but much rather aground for believing that it is; that the history deals with common, every-day life, and sanctions man* ners and notions belonging only to an imperfect state of society and of science, is also no ground for doubt, but much more a ground of faith, for from the very nature of the revelation — it being a revelation of God in the people and their life, — ^it must deal with such a state of life and science ; this it has been sought to shew. The view of the Bible thus presented has been by no means defended as it is capable of being, the writer's aim being to serve those who prefer suggestion rather than elaborate argu- ment. In this age of the subjective, it is a vital necessity to hold fast to the objective. It is of the essence of our salvation that it is without its as well as within us. It is from ourselves that we need to be saved. And so our Redeemer came down from heaven, and after his return sent the Comforter. To grasp these historical^ outer facts, is to grasp what many are letting go.

J. F. Smith.

1868-] ( 107 )

EXEGESIS OF DIFFICULT TEXTS. Matt. yiii. 9. Luke vii. 8.

It is commonly said that the inference from the m^ords of the centurion's message^ " For I also am a man under authority/' etc.^ is of an a fortiori nature : " If my servants obey my subal- tern authority, much more will diseases obey thy absolute authority/' But this assigns no force to the kcu in koX yap iyoi> avOpayn-Q^ eifiL inrb i^ovaiav, exfov \m ifxavrov aTpanan-cui, which is neglected in the Authorized Version of St. Matthew, but translated " also/' as above, in that of St. Luke. It would seem to as that the centurion intended to draw an exact parallel be- tween the position of Jesus and his own. Jesus was inro i^ovalav in his idea as regards the Person from whom His commission came, namely, God, just as much as he was himself under his superior officers, and ultimately under the emperor. Thus he considered that our Lord's authority, derived from Ood, over diseases and other physical and mental phenomena, was similar to his own, derived from man, over his soldiers and servants. So that word of mouth, — compare Xe7ft) rointp in Matt. viii. 9 with cliri Tioy^ in the preceding verse, — in either case was suf- ficient without actual propinquity or touch. The Jews always appear to have expected our Lord to touch or be touched in the performance of a cure (compare Mark v. 28). In raising the young man at Nain he touched the coffin ; the daughter of Jairus was taken by the hand ; and in fact with a few exceptions, such as that of the ten lepers who were cleansed while going to the priests, touch appears to have been our Lord's practice. Our Lord's own disciples were as yet scarcely certain that He was the ''Christ of God" (Luke ix. 20); and it is treason to sound criticism to suppose that the centurion had any idea that he was more than man, when another reasonable explanation can be found independent of any such assumption.

Again, if we compare the case of the centurion with that of the nobleman (/ScurtX^co?) mentioned in John iv. 46 — 54, we shall see abimdant reason for the commendation of the especial faith shewn by the former without supposing him to have pos- sessed any greater insight into our Lord's divine nature than the mass of people of the day. When the nobleman says to our Lord, ''Sir, come down ere my child die/' our Lord replies, "Go thy way, thy son liveth," — thus putting his faith to the very trial to which the centurion at once declares himself superior.

It must, however, be acknowledged that the /cal in teal yhp does not always belong to the following word, but the phrase some-

108 Exegesis of difficult Tewis. [Aprilj

times corresponds to the Latin etenim rather than to nam eiiam. In Xen.^ Anab., i. 1, 6^ we find an instance of the sense etenim, KaX yap 7i<rav ai ^ItovixaX 7r6\ei<i Tiaa-a<l>ipvovff to apr)(pSjov ; but in the same book and chapter^ § 8^ there is an equally clear instance of the sense nam etiam, which we believe it to have in the history of the centurion. This passage runs : koX yap 6 Kvpo^ airhrepme Tob^ ytryvofiivov^ Sa^rfiov^ fiao'tXei ix r&v iroKemv &v Turaa^pprf^ irvyxavev e^o)i/. ''For Cyrus also (as well as Tissaphemes) used to send in for the king the accruing tributes from the towns that Tissaphemes used to hold/'

In any case the argument from the improbability of the centurion havings except by special revelation^ a fuller knowledge of our Lord's real nature than was possessed by His own dis- ciples^ and the absence of any indication of such a revelation^ hold good against the i fortiori explanation of his speech^ which we contend to be both needless^ groundless^ and uncritical.

Matt. vi. 12. Luke xi. 3.

Assuming the derivation of eirtovaio^ from hrX and eZ/a to be correct^ and rejecting the instances cited to signify its deriva* tion from kirl and eipX, as either containing relics of the digamma taken from epic Greeks or belonging to an older state of the language^ we think the commentators have not as yet succeeded in analyzing the word satisfactorily. Surely we must not with Winer attempt to derive it from €7rta>v, or rather from ^ hrvovaa flpMpa^ which^ the upholders of hrX and elpX rightly observe^ gives a false sense and makes us pray for the '' succeeding '^ day, the morrow^ for the things of which we are shortly afterwards, by St. Matthew, — indeed, at the conclusion of the same chapter, — bidden not to care. Let us rather take as our guide the words> ^^Su)9=e7rl Tqv oSoVy "lasting for the journey,'* i<fyi]pApu)<:, ''lasting for a day,'' and eTrenjauy; in Hom. Orf., vii. 118.

'' Tawv ovirore Kafmo^ airoWvreu oifB dxoX^isrci

which, begging pardon of Liddell and Scott in their last edition, is manifestly correctly explained by Damm and Host as meaning ^' lasting the whole jear" iirl to ho^, in contradistinction to hrereio^, which indicates annual change or recurrence. Such is also probably the origin of i^eravo^, although the sense '' suf- ficient " is said to be always satisfactory without any allusion to ero9. Hence we shall come in the case of hrtovaio^ to eirl Ttfp ^lOTSAN fipApaVy " sufficient for the going or current day," a sense and derivation which appear to satisfy all the conditions of both the word and its context.

1863.] Exegesis of difficult Tewis. 109

We must not, however^ attempt to ignore the difficulty pre* sented by Earipides^ Phcen., 1637 : —

*' Kai jrapOevcvov r^t^ lovaav yfiepav

Mdvovff', €v n ae MKipov Aifiovos fievei**

** And remain a virgin, awaiting the coming day« in which the bed of Hsemon awaits you."

Here, however, lovaav is the reading of only one manuscript, most of the others giving elaiov<rav or emova-av, thus indicating that lowav is here used in an unusual sense^ and one in which the example of Euripides was not followed by his countrymen generally. We do not think that lowav in the sense of " com- ing'' would have been at all familiar or even intelligible to the writers or readers of the gospels, who would respectively have used and expected ip^ofiivvv. Strange to say etfjui appears only to be used once in the LXX., in Prov. vi. 6, Wl -wpo? rov fjLvpfirjKa, and then in the sense of going, '' Go to the ant.^'

Paley, in remarking on the above passage of Euripides, says : — *' It seems doubtful if iovtra ^fiipa could signify a coming day. It should rather mean, 'a day now partly spent,''' which is exactly the meaning for which we are contending with regard to the compound errtovaio^.

We must now leave the passage of Euripides with the alter- natives of taking ioxxrav in a very strange sense, or of consider- ing that Creon is represented as brutal enough to order Antigone to prepare for marriage on the night of the very day on which she has lost her two brothers by mutual slaughter. But we offer our explanation of the derivation of emovaio^ with considerable confidence.

Mark ix. 23.

Assuming that the word Trurrevo'cu is an interpolation, we cannot but object to TischendorPs introduction of a note of in- terrogation Bfter To el hvvaaaL. A semicolon should be put in the Greek, and a note of admiration, not of interrogation, in English. The translation would then run thus : " But if aught thou canst, help us, taking pity upon us. But Jesus said to him, If thou canst I All things are possible to the believer." The meaning is, '^ I am surprised at your use of the expression. If thou canst ; of course I can ; all things are within the power of a real believer."

To translate to el hvvcurcu wLareva-ai with De Wette and others, ''the usual formula. If thou canst believe," is to call that usual which was not usual, at least as far as we can see from our

110 Exegesis of Difficult Texts. [April,

present gospels. Reference was undoubtedly made by our Lord to the faith of some of the parties concerned in cures^ but this was not the usual formula by which he did so. And De Wette's objection that ^r tl Bwaa-cu would have followed t6, instead of merely el Svvcurai, is surely hypercriticism. The gravamen of the man's offence lay in el BvvcurcUy not in the modifying rt ; and the mistakes of so many commentators have arisen from their not seeing that our Lord's reference was not to the faith of the man^ but to His own.

In Plato's Phoedo, 99 B.^ we have a sentence beginning with TO and finishing without any finite verb : to yhp fitf BteXeaOcu olov Telvai otl SXKjo fiev ri icm ro aXriov r^ ovri, aXKo S^exelvo avev ov ro oXtiov ovk av Troreiq aXnov which should be trans- lated : " For fancy not being able to distinguish that the cause in reality is one thing, and that without which the cause would never be a cause, another V*

Luke iii. 23.

We have never been satisfied with any explanation of fjv dpxofievo^ that we have seen. It is clear that &v cannot follow it in construction ; and to translate ap^ofievo^, " when he began his ministry/' taking fjv with oxrei ir&v TpicucovTa, appears to us exceedingly awkward. With the reading of Tischendorf, ^v 6 ^Irjaov^ apyofievo^; axrel er&v rpiaKovra, we think the translation which we are about to propose is certainly right ; and even with the common reading, which perhaps was originated by some one who misunderstood the other, we think it can claim a fair share of probability. Referring to the commencement of the Acts, we find tov fiev irp&rov \6yov i7roirf(rd/Mrjv irepl 'jravrcaVf & S€6<l>iXe, &v ^HP*3,ATO 6 ^Itfo-ov^ iroielv re luu BiBda-Keiv. Now why should not ^v dpxofievo^ be the ordinary compound past tense, which f^v ipxofievov surely is in John i. 9, and of which the instances are almost innumerable in the New Testa- ment and LXX. ? As for instance Mark ii. 18, ^cav vrfOTeu- ovT€^; Luke ii. 83, ^v 'loxr^^ koI i} P'TjTqp airrov dav/Ma^ovre^, Thus the translation is very simple, the genitive of age corre- sponding to the ordinary Latin use : " And Jesus himself began (his ministry, Le,, irotelv koI BtBcuncetv, as -in Acts i. 1) when about thirty years old, being, as he was supposed,^' etc.

This explanation also satisfies the usual rule, that ^u and its participle are only separated by their subject and its adjuncts.

LuKB vii. 36 — 50.

Translate verse 50 : " Wherefore I say unto thee. Her many sins are forgiven, because she loved much j but one to whom

1863.] Exegesis of Difficult Texts, 111

there is little to be forgiven, loveth little/' Cut paulum est quod renUftatur, is paulum amat The common translation would require the perfect a<f>€iT(u instead of the present a(f>l€raL. But this is not all. Commentators are wonderfully troubled about the fact of her loving much, ore rfydwijae ttoX^, being placed as the cause of the forgiveness of her many sins, some even going 80 far as to translate Stl by " therefore ;" (! ! !) and almost ail of late years treating ori as introducing merely the proof and evidence of her previous forgiveness. But the woman had not yet been forgiven, nor is there any ground whatever for suppos- ing that she was forgiven till our Lord's words in the next verse (rerse 48) . The fact is that the application of the parable of the two debtors to the cases of the woman and Simon is not direct but inferential, they being in the position of the debtors before their debts were remitted. Our Lord speaks here as if the woman^s act of love had gained her pardon ; and such must have been to the bystanders, who were not so well instructed in the great doctrine of justification by faith only as ourselves, the obvious construction of his conduct and words at first. This was done in order to exhibit the contrast between her many sins and the miuih love which she displayed ; and for this purpose a temporary relation of cause and effect between rjydiryfae and cuf)i[ovTai is allowed. It is mere trifling to speculate on the moment when the woman's sins were forgiven. No doubt she had a " sure and certain hope ^^ that forgiven they would be, and consequently exhibited the love for which she was commended by our Lord. But He afterwards corrects this partially erroneous impression by an explanation more completely in accordance with the relation between God and sinful man, and ascribes the salvation of the woman to the ttUttl^ hi arfdirrj^ ivepyovfihnfy which worked by and manifested itself in her act of love. " Thy faith hath saved thee ; go in peace.'^

A mere textuarius might be misled by the statement of verse 47, but when the whole history of the event is taken to- gether, the importance ascribed by our Lord to faith comes out in still stronger relief after its temporary and partial obscura- tion; or the difficulty may be put aside at once by observing that a more striking case of Trurrt? Bi arfdirq^ ivepyovfxivrjj "faith working by love,'* could scarcely be imagined.

Romans v. 1.

The earliest MSS. are unanimous in giving iytofiev instead of l)(pfjLev in this place. If l^co/xev be read, it will be necessary also to consider Katj)(<ofieda in 2 and 3 to be subjunctive also, as

112 Bregeris of Diffiadt Texts. [April,

they must clearly follow the mood of the first verb in the para* graph. To the reading ep^6D/A€i/ is objected the habit^ on the part of those who made selections from the Scriptures for use in church, of reducing these selections by slight alteration to a hortatory form^ which it is supposed then insinuated itself into the MSS. But let us read on, and see whether we do not come to a word which is evidently in the same connexion, and which will be in a form that must settle the question. Such a word we find in verse 11, ov fiovov ik, oKSm koX Kav^tS^fievoi, ev r^ ^^^, ac.t.X., where no copula is supplied to the participle xav^oDfji^euoL. But the uniform usage of participles used instead of finite verbs in the New Testament is, that they are considered as imperatives wherever no copula is supplied. We find, therefore, that KavxoifJ'Cvoi in verse 11 is imperative; therefore Kavyti^Oa in verse 3 is so to; therefore Kovx^iieda in verse 2 is so; and finally, ^(Ofbev must be the reading, and not exofJisv,

Romans vi. 20,

Adopting the modem stopping of verse 21, which in our opinion is clearly right, the translation will run, " For when ye were slaves of sin, ye were freemen in relation to righteousness. What fruit, therefore, had ye then? Things of which ye are now ashamed ; for the end of those things is death. But now, being emancipated from sin and enslaved to God, ye have your fruit tending to sanctification, and the final result eternal life.'' Here a question arises as to whether the firuit is to be pro- duced or gathered by the persons spoken of, which does not appear to us to have been sufficiently discussed in a grammatical point of view. The fact is that phrases made up of e^a> with a substantive are perfectly indefinite, and may either have an active or a passive meaning as required by their context. Thus exjeiv Kapnrov may either =:(rta'a7ety Kopirov or ^ipew Kapnrov* In Bom. i. 13, Xva riva Kaprirov ayjS^^ it is difficult to determine which sense is employed; but as in verse 11 St. Paul speaks of his desire to impart some spiritual gift to his converts, possibly the sense " that I may produce '^ is preferable to that, " that I may reap some fruit among you as also amongst the other Oentiles.^' In the passage under consideration a reference to vii. 6, Xva Kafyrroifwp^a'cofjLey r^ Se^, shews pretty plainly that ix^LV should be taken as equivalent to <f>ip€iv rather than to avvarfeiv. The translation will then run very simply and easily : " For when ye were slaves of sin, ye were freemen in relation to righteousness. What fruit therefore did ye then produce? Things of which ye are now ashamed; for the end of those things is death. But now, being emancipated from sin and

1863.] BxegesU of Diffleutt Texi9. 113

enslaved to Ood^ the fruit that ye produce tends to sanctifi- cation^ and its final result is eternal life/'

Romans ix. 21.

There appears a singular mistranslation here in every com- mentator that we have examined. The position of a-zceOo^ shews that it must be a predicate of h fihf, and not taken with it. Translate *' Or hath not the potter power over the clay, out of the same lump to make one portion a vessel for honour, and another portion one for dishonour.^'

Romans x. 30.

We cannot find any instance to justify the translation of iir^pan&ai ifsi by ''asked after me/' which appears to be common to almost all commentators. That sense appears con- fined to hrepcrrav with efc as in 2 Sam. xi. 7. But Judges i. 1 and similar passages woxdd indicate the proper sense to be ''consulted me/' as an oracle or deity is consulted. " I became manifest to those who consulted me not." The Hebrew is ^^, without anything to lead the signification, and in one MS. we find *a^^^ and in another "h ^. Thus from the received Hebrew text we obtain no assistance, while the two MSS. alluded to give us respectively the above senses of kirepo^rdv with the accusative alone, and with eU and the accusative.

Romans xv. 23, 24.

On looking over this passage carefully it appears to us that there is neither an anacoluthon nor a parenthesis in it, but merely a brachylogia. One class of MSS. introduces kXevaofiai 7/309 vfia^ after SiravUiy, and another omits ycLp after iXwlfyi, each of which alterations has the efiect of removing the diffi- culty. But when two different ways of removing difficulties are resorted to in MSS. it is generally pretty clear that both must be rejected, and the difficulty must be retained. Rejecting therefore ikeiiaofuu wpo^ vfia^ and retaining ykp, we translate as follows, "But now having no room any longer in these regions, and having had a longing for these many years to go to you, [it shall be] whenever I am on my road to Spain, for I hope as I pass through to see you,'' etc. Thus <&9 ^^v nropevtofiat 6K rrjv S'lravlav is the whole of the apodosis to the words pre- ceding, and eXjevaofuu irpd^ v/ta9 is a correct gloss as regards the sense, and probably crept into the text from the margin.

2 Timothy i. 18. We are happy to find our explanation of this text, as involv-

NEW SERIES. — ^VOL. III., NO. V. I

114 EwegeriB of DiffieuU Tewts. [April,

ing an injunction to Timothy to draw np a creeds instead of one to hold fast a creed of which he was already in possessionj indorsed by the writer of an article on the Greek Testament^ in the (Quarterly Review for January last. We seize this oppor- tunity of completing the subject. Our readers will find our explanation in The Journal of Sacred LUeraturej No, XXII., for July, 1860, p. 434.

We find that the Philoxenian Syriac Version agrees with us on this point, and may be thus rendered into Latin : " Forma (typus) sit tibi sermonum sanorum, quos a me audistf But the Peschito Version gives the copula, which stands first in the sentence, as a plural, and it is therefore clearly improper to translate it '^ sit tibi formula/' Mr. B. H. Cowper explains it thus: ''The Apostle tells Timothy to have or to hold as his examples and models (of teaching) the words which he had spoken,^' and translates: ''Sint tibi exemplar' sani sermones, quos audisti a me/' This would require vyuui/ovrav Xoytov to be considered as attracted into the case of its relative &v, like XlOov iv a'jreBoKlfuurav, and numerous other instances which might be quoted. But this would be perhaps the hardest instance of the attraction of the antecedent into the case of its relative that we are acquainted with, and is indeed so harsh, that, though we allow its possibility, yet we consider the balance of probability to be decidedly in favour of our explanation, con- firmed as we now find it to be by the Philoxenian Syriac, and indorsed by the learned writer in the Quarterly,

2 Timothy ii. 26.

It is pretty clear that the only translation the sense and sequence of tUs passage admit of is, '' And may recover out of the snare of the devil, captured as they have been by him to do his will;'' where avrop.and exelvov refer to the same person, the devil. AvTo^ is used instead of repeating €K€ivo^, and may similarly be used instead of repeating ovto^, where the eteeivo^ or o&ro9 is unemphatic. There is an excellent instance of this in Thucyd., v., 30, Oe&i^ yhp irUrTev; ofioiravTe^ kKelvov; ovk &v evoptcelv irpoBi8ovT&; avroihy where i/celvoi^ and avrov^ refer to the same parties. So also. in Thjicyd., iii., 61, iva fMi]Te 47 ^/leripa avTov<: KOMut wf>€\^ iitije 9} rovrtop Sofa, where avToi>^ and TovTcov have the same reference.

A. H. W.

^ EtTinologically the Syriac word for ^ exemplar ' is the same as gpecunen in Latin.

1863.] ( 115 )

ANSCDOTA EnrsIACA.-

The acqaisition of the Nitrian manuscripts by the British Museom has given a wonderful impulse to the study of the Syriac language ; and the works published in this department of literature, during the last ten or fifteen years^ exceed in number and importance the publications of any former period since the days of Widmanstad. Cureton led the way, to be quickly fol- lowed by his countiymen Payne Smith and Cowper, as well as by the Oerman De Lagarde, the Dane Rordam, and the Italian Ceriani. Nor are these all, for Dr. Overbeck of Oxford, and Dr. Bickell of Marburg, have not as yet made known the results of their labours, and the first volume of Dr. Land's Anecdota Syriaca has but recently reached this country, the pioneer of at least four more of about the same size.

Dr. Land resided in England, as the readers of this Journal may remember, for about twelve months during the years 1857 and 1858, having been sent by the Dutch government, at the recommendation of the late lamented Professor JuynboU, to study the Nitrian manuscripts, and copy some of the most valu- able of them for the University Library of Leyden, with the understanding that he should afterwards edit the same at the public expense. Dr. Land applied himself most diligently to his task, and carried away with him transcripts of no less than leven volumes or parts of volumes, which he enumerates in his Prolegomena, pp. 36 — i4.

Of these the most important, doubtless, are the hitherto unedited historical and biographical writings of John, Bishop of Ada or of Ephesus (as he is indifferently styled), contained in the MSS. 14647 and 14650, and the extensive remains of the Ecclemtstical History of Zacharias Rhetor, Bishop of Mitylene, preserved in the MS. 17202. Of less value are the historical extracts from the MS. 14648, which seems to be chiefly an epitome of the Chronicle of Eusebius of Casarea, interspersed with a few notes and extracts from other sources. Of much interest to the Biblical student will be the fragments of the Gospek and of the Psalms, written in the somewhat peculiar Palestinian or Jerusalemite character. The latter are said by Dr. Land to be translated from the Septuagint version. The student of ancient law will find matter for study in the Leges Saculares of Constantine, Theodosius and Leo ; and the classical

« Anecdota Syriaca, CdUegit edidit explieuit J, P. N. Land, Theohgice Doctor, TWtif primus. JngwU TabuUe xxviii. LUhographiccs. Lugduni Batavorum, apvd ^. J, Brilly AcadenUcR Typographum. Quarto. Syriac text, 73 pp. ; prolegomena and notes, 214 pp.; preface, xiv. pp.

I 2

116 Anecdoia Syriaca. [April,

philologist may amuse himself with comparing the Syriac version of the Sayings of Menander the Wise, with the extant Greek fragments ascribed to the same author. Of this large and varied collection the volume before us contains only a small portion, namely, the extracts from the MS. 14643, the Leges SactUares, and the Sayings of Menander^ to which is added a brief history of the Christians of St. Thomas in Southern India, extracted from the Leyden MS. 1213. These are accompanied by a Latin translation and notes, and preceded by copious Prolegomena, giving a general account of the Syriac manuscripts at Leyden and in the British Museum, details regarding the author's studies and the volumes he transcribed, and, lastly, many not unim- portant palseographical observations. The outward aspect of the volume is all that could be wished, as the paper and type, Syriac and Roman, ^e both good. The price, moreover, is exceedingly moderate, as the book is sold in this country for about fourteen shillings.

Having said thus much in praise of the work, I am sorry to be obliged to state that the different texts are not by any means so carefully edited as could have been desired. In publishing documents of such venerable antiquity for the first time, a minute adherence to the (often unique) manuscript text is imperatively required ; and the editor must be content to banish his emenda- tions and alterations of every description into notes at the* foot of the page or elsewhere. Due allowance should be made for the position of a scholar residing far from the British Museum, and therefore unable to recoUate his copies with the originals as the sheets passed through the press ; but still, after taking this into account. Dr. Land has not, I think, fulfilled the promise of his preface (pp. ix. and x.), where he says : '^ In scriptorum verbis edendis codicum testimonium, ut potui, secutus sum/' and, '^Textum emendare studui ubicunque certa sese via offerebat, nee unquam omissa codicis meniione'* (the italics are mine). To very trifling and obvious alterations one might perhaps not object, even if they were made in silence; as, for example,

\iLi for ]±i4 (p. 11, 1. 12), lA^ for ]L3lm (p. 12, 1. 9), -jJi^ for ,-.JL» (p. 13, 1. 11), ^LtL] for ^^A^Al] (p. 23,

I. 11), l;fiCLL232. for l;m\// (p. 23, 1. 14), or even «£DOiJZ>a£irx>

for •cdoi^OjDO (p. 9, 1. 4). But when the orthography of proper names and other words is altered, when dates are changed, and words are inserted by conjecture in the text, the reader should have been duly warned. Take the following instances from the first twenty-four pages. Page 2, line 22, MS., cdA-iIo, and

1863.] Anecdota Syriaca. 117

similarly^ p. 24^ ]. 8^ l^p*!- ^'' l^ctnd^s alteration substitutes the more modern for the more ancient spelling. — Page 8^ 1« 7, MS., ^ ]]\ ^rh lA^od^ ]iJb\ ^. The points ^. denote that

the words 11" u^ lAlocL should be transposed (see the Pro- legomena, p. 97, § 28).* Line 11, MS., 11^^ lici^ ^iina p,

exactly corresponding to the Greek text, quoted by Dr. Land at p. 169, 3po^ eirl iroXif Btareficiv. Line 17, MS., i rf>0 1 i *^\. Line 24, MS., Sj-mO.— Page 4, 1. 16, MS., .mi i\o\ ooi,—

Page 5, 1. 3, MS., U-ju* ooi ^.— Page 6, 1. 8, MS., ^^^].

Line 14, Dr. Land has added the word ;.£loZ}o, '^ and fie was buried/^ which is not in the manuscript. Line 18, MS., ^iDQJUb^JL^oo, and so again in 1. 20, after ai5As. — Page 7,

1. 13, MS., tminytol. Line 18, MS., -iOnL. Aj-*^.— Page 8,

1. 5, MS., Lk^JO. The older manuscripts often omit the final

o and «-A in the third person plural, masculine and feminine. Line 10, the MS. has correctly ^oouio Q-»fl^lo, instead of the

unmeaning o.fti^'jo. Line 21, Dr. Land has omitted the word

■ I in before lin> (compare 1. 19). — Page 9, 1. 12, MS.,

. fon ■ ino] ^^^^i^oo. Line 24, MS., > m i mo?A^.— Page 10,

L 6, MS., - «^ '^ < ■■ — Page 11, 1. 19, MS., correctly, ')Son»» i. —

Page 13, L 17, MS., UH.— Page 14, 1. 10, MS., correctly wOTO|p#>, but incorrectly ^iixJ^o. — Page 15, 1. 8, MS., ■ i sn mO. Line 12, MS., ^loaii^V^. Line 19, MS., Al ao, not Li^mjdo. Line 21, MS., HVilV)! Line 22, MS., correctly, loaSoinl. Line 24, MS., V6^?l>?* 1'he correct reading is |4^>1^. — Page 16, 1. 2, MS., ^;pDCUUO. Line 8, MS., oiJZ]3. Line 20, the MS. actually has «ID)0;\. — Page 17, line 4, MS., correctly,

l^pi^jD ns^<=^. Line 18, MS., ^oX^^ZIo, an older form than

al4£)2.1o. Line 25, MS., «rm ifn^^ml.— Page 18, 1. 9, MS., correctly, ^^ ooi) (from ^l^J), in place of the nonsensical

* These points are sometimea placed ander the words to be transposed (v) instead of OTer them.

118 Anecdota Syriaca. [April,

^loJ}. Line 22, MS., correctly, oiZ^,— Page 19, 1. 7, after pZ

Br.Land has omitted the three words ]n\V) .CDai-feSjcn » ^^no in "in the days of the emperor Hadrian;^* and again in 1. 20,

after ViiJ -^^^, the seven words ^^iNtl ]y)i n » i mo

}JmJ ^ ^\rs^rs ^;rf>^ - ^*^1?, which are necessary to com- plete the sense. Line 20, MS., correctly l/,SO, without the

two points. Line 23, MS., IAjQJAO; read l^Q-iCULio. — Page 20, 1. 7, MS., )k)OC7i^. Line 17, the word %^C7i before ^j is not in the MS. Line 20, MS., .gu5of)ni i. Line 26, MS., ^ .'jrfsKrs — Page 21, L 5, MS., ^my. Line 19, MS., correctly, Ai >^^n^ and ]i .oV<7^\ Line 21 and 22, MS., •coaj.iDO)>o ] 1 no i 5 il>o. Line 28, MS., ^1 Al^ V^l.— Page 22, 1. 2,

MS., correctly U»2^o. Line 28, MS., correctly, ^i i lO ^yL

—Page 23, 1. 2, MS., 1 1 lyn i n and )jj;g>cim£). Line 4, MS.,

'U'^oL—PsLge 24, 1. 7, oai> •flO-iji^. This list snflSces, I think,

to prove that Dr. Land has deviated from his manuscripts in many instances without informing his readers that any alteration has been made. It is with regret that I add, that even in the matter of the diacritical points and the punctuation he is equally neglectful. To him it seems a thing of little consequence whether he leaves out a point or inserts it, whether he places the ribbui over one letter or another, and whether he writes a single point instead of '. or not. It is no sufficient excuse for him to say (Prolegom., p. 97) that he has scarcely anywhere found a consistent method of interpunctuation in the Nitrian manuscripts ; he ought to have given us what he did find, so as to afford other scholars an opportunity of forming a judgment. Let me give two or three sentences as examples of his short* comings. In the very first sentence of the book, p. 2. 1. 1 — 5, the

MS. has ]l^^^h >^rnio, 12.o i > i ^^, U^, and o,n\A»lo. On p. 32, in the passage extending from 1. 8 to 1. 17, the fol- lowing alterations are necessary : 1. ^, lf£^; 1.10, \^yL; 1. 12

Pd '.li^Cd^; 1. 13, ;^AlAl; 1. 14, Ol^iiii^; 1. 16, -.IfDOioij

1. 17, •.^Jj-K»J>, Or*^. and If^^?' On p. 65, we must write

in 1. 1, )Sd]1o; in I. 3, M^; in 1. 4, Ucoj, and in 1. 5, ^^-^^i^^ with the point in each case under the l(i8t letter of the word.

1863.] Anecdota Syriaca. 119

For the sake of those who hare not^ like myself^ constant access to the Nitrian manuscripts^ I give here a selection from the remaining annotations on the margins of my copy of the Anecdota. The reader will see that in most instances Dr. Land's alteration of the manuscript is uncalled for^ if not actuaUy erroneous.

Page 31^ 1. 6^ instead of ^ .^^^^ the MS. has ^|SnV>,

which appears to me to require no change. In I. 9, the MS. has ll3l /nSOyQ; in 1. 21, ^ocrujLuKil> ol.— Page 88, 1. 11, MS., ],Vn ^jjo.— Page 34, 1. 18, MS., flfl^ALD ]3.— Page 85,

1. 25, MS., aC^J^y aiZoio.— Page 86, 1. 18, MS., l^^nmf^l. —Page 37, 1. 8, MS. correctly ^^5^1?, 3rd pers. plur. fem. —

Page 38, line 4, MS., Ujld> ]kL» ^.— Page 39, line 19, MS.,

oiZoja] .JjLo - <^; Line 25, MS., Aoai-kZl P, as on p. 40, 1. 1.— Page 40, 1. 2, MS., ^j. Line 6, MS., ^oio i nm>. Line 26, MS., ^aiQuii^AJ? oi^o. — ^Page 41, line 10, MS., •^oiair:) > ■ i »V n. Line 25, MS., ZlS£)9 liTL^and ^a^J ]]o. —Page 42, 1. 23, MS., oii-i-liD ^1.— Page 43, 1. 25 and 26, MS., uDoAjfcJ ^> J. — Page 44, 1. 9, MS., ^okL^jI «^Nm. Line 17, add liXul after lo^ ^o. — Page 45, line 4, MS.,

^ocnXi^LLD ^p ]1. Line 13, MS., correctly, V>^*-»1 looi ]iL]£i.

Line 25, MS., ^] UiJ? — Page 47, 1. 2, MS., ^CJi Vlo.— Page 48, line 17, MS., lauiCLD>^.— Page 49, line 19, MS., I^UjoZI? ooi:^ ^4-*^ ]].— Page 50, 1. 16, MS., ^liilo.— Page 54, 1. 4, MS., correctly ^i i\C. Line 9, MS., correctly

UaiaiD ^jAjo.— Page 55, 1. 20, MS., ]jS^j without ?.— Page 57, 1. 6, MS., correctly ]juayTiVi\ oiX.— Page 58, 1. 15, AuOOi? is a misprint for Zocnj. Line 17, MS., *-ilj1 ]]?. — Page 60, 1. 18. The MS. seems to me to have ai-^p^o, though the first letter is rather injured and not distinctly legible. In the last line read with the MS., ^JpOaarD.— Page 61, 1. 14, MS., IsiLh. Lin^ 22, MS., ^Sfh^ .^xiSs.— Page 62, 1. 7, MS., lj.mJLO. Line 14, MS., ^^j^- Line 15, MS., ]^ ^^ (as in 1. 19) and ^ - V^ Line 19, Dr. Land has added the

120 Anecdoia Syriaca. [Aprilj

words o llSo after V> AiiLa.— Page 63, 1. 27, MS., ]r5QLw l^ioii.— Page 64, 1. 3, MS., Un^t-SO. Line 19, here the MS. is injured,

but it appears to me to have had lo/y^ ^^^^ ^^ ^&0{jeLl P. The word 001 is distinct, as also the upper part of the ^ (it can- not be I). The same injury has obliterated a short word be- tween ^oiojl* and 1$QJ;, perhaps ^^^iD. — Page 65, 1. 1, MS.,

Vonim ^ Xio. oinilnN. Line 11, MS., .aisiLlSQli }^j2im

•

]jlLl.— Page 66, 1. 2, MS., wOlorDO^-, which demolishes Dr.

Land's note on the passage. Instead of the word |inV>,

the MS. has in 1. 3, ]^^^ and in 1. 4, ]l\V>, nor do I see why these readings should be altered : '^ Sleep conveys us into

Hades (from ^^, io enter), and Dream lets us hold converse (from ]jLl., to speak to) with the dead J* Line 11, MS., ^CTOiNnnl V. Line 24, MS., ^1 U^— Page 67, 1. 4, MS., ^^-'^ll ISnSs. Line 8, AjLi? is a misprint for U-«?. Line 18, MS., y-^^^^ ^ocuoL Line 27, MS., ^cno;;Loll ^o. —Page 68, 1. 4, MS., ,m in •.^-.-oo.— Page 69, 1. 16, MS., \l^L, not ]ri£:)2..— Page 70, 1. 1, MS., l^OwV Vv^mio.— Page 72, 1. 3, MS., ll iSV) •ufc-.5, fountain-head.— Vsl^ 73, 1. 1. The MS. has distinctly \L i nAV> '\^. Line 11, MS., ^s^^nt^.

I had intended offering a few observations upon some pas- sages in Dr. Land's translations and notes, but I see that I must pass on to the Prolegomena, which afford many oppor- tunities for remarks.

And, first of all, let me say that no consideration should have induced Dr. Land to publish a mere translation of a portion of the Catalogue of Additional Manuscripts (viz., Nos. 12133 — 181 and 14426 — 32) in the way he has done. He must know that these very brief descriptions are in many places necessarily incomplete, and even sometimes inaccurate, because they were drawn up, so far at least as regards Nos. 12133 — 181, before the second and third portions of the collection (14425—740, 17102—274) had reached the museum. He must also be aware that the manuscripts arrived in England in a state of the direst disorder, having be^n not only long neglected but often wilfully maltreated by the monks of the Desert ; and that it took years of study on the part of Dr. Cureton and others to bring them into some-

1863.] Anecdota Syriaca. 121

tiling like reasonable order. I myself have during the last eighteen or twenty months examined and accurately noted the contents of some four hundred volumes, at the same time re- arranging many of them either wholly or in part. Nor ought Dr. Land to have published the notes taken by him in 1857 and 1858, without ascertaining from some one connected with the Department of Manuscripts whether the volumes were still in the same condition. For instance, 14609 (p. 19), 17202 (p. 88), and 17274 (p. 18) have been re-arranged by myself, and are in a very different state from that in which he saw them.

At all events, having made up his mind to reprint these por- tions of the catalogue, and to publish all his notes. Dr. Land should, in justice to himself and others, have been as accurate as possible. Unfortunately it is not so. The Prolegomena abound in the same kinds of mistakes as the rest of the work, as the following instances will suffice to shew.

On p. 15, we find the MS. 12171 described as Joannis (sic) Philoponus de Christi naiivitate; A.D. 815. The reader will perhaps hardly believe that the catalogue correctly describes it as containing a work of Joannes Philoponus, " On the Natures of Christ." The precise title of the Syriac translation is,

lZoLjp»> ^^ AjlD ol tm ■ (^ ■ IX^}, t.tf.., Auurnni^, concerning

the Union (of the two Natures in Christ).

The description of the MS. 14609 (p. 19) is incomplete. A whole quire has been recently added to it, containing the

epistle of Joannes Monachus to Hesychius, «^|lo Lql^i ^^^^

lZo$A.klo> l;;oOf£^ Ioctu; oi2^ ]]b ^-n^l>* 1, — — .m i nroooi.

The name of the Father called by Dr. Land " Menna,^* is writ- ten in the MS., ^-.a.£D, Bin, and not ^iV), Mtn. This life

occupies only a couple of pages, and is succeeded by numerous other extracts from the work of Palladius, and by a long life of Serapion, which is found also in several other manuscripts.

The last item in the description of the MS. 14644 (now re- arranged) contains a ludicrous mistake. Dr. Land writes: ** Inter f. 86 et 87 initium Historic quatuordecim virorum Dei ex urbe Eoma.*' The History of the Man of God from the City of Rome was well known to me from several manuscripts, but it was not till I looked at the index of 14644 that I discovered how the blunder originated. According to the index the volume contains fourteen histories, the last of which is that of the

Man of God from Rome, ^ooi; .loilL; ]»n^^\:i^> ]t i S mLo

122 Anecdoia Syriaca. [April,

The palimpsest 14651 (p. 20, 21) contains, according to Dr. Land^ portions of the Oospel of St, Luke. Did he not remark that his own facsimile (tab. xiv.) exhibits chap. yi. 18 — 20 of St. Mark ?

The Syriac extracts in the description of 14641 (p. 21) are full of errors. In the first read with the MS., otZo 1 V) lOi and )]5a^o, ^^the uncircumcised;'^ in the second, ]i omn<y\^ jjj \n CD ; in the third, ]^ - ^ -- CTUpSQJl ^iD, ^^from the lamented decease of Conaiantine/' and ^OLOjt^o *]La£mJy. Moreover, Dr.

Land is mistaken when he writes (p. 21, note 1) that the name of Eusebius is due to an error of the scribe ; for on fol. 80 vers., in the second column, it is distinctly stated that this Eusebius lived till he heard the news of the death of Julian, and died himself at a good old age in the year of the Greeks 673. I may add that the name of the author of this history is written on

fol. 31 vers., first column, rn >.\n\g^1 On p. 23, read in 1. 2,

^^) ]Ll^ ; in 1. 13, .CDGLDslo, and in 1. 19, ]l .i m\ %o\m p.

Dr. Land would have acted wisely, had he passed over in silence the oversights of Dr. Cureton and of B. H. C. (p. 31), as well as omitted his harsh expressions regarding Professor Dietrich (p. 62) ; for in reproducing (p. 32 — 35) the extracts from Severtis of Antioch, contained in the MS. 14533 (now re-arranged), he has fallen into several most serious mistakes. In the second

line of the Syriac text read ]io3Aj instead of U^5Aj ; in 1. 6^ ]A^)]Lo, and IjcL^iJio instead of l>a.^j^; in 1.14, l,nsnO; in 1. 15, oiZAkkLo and ]]* \\^i (the latter is merely a mis- print) ; in 1. 16, IAIOj-T)) U'1Jo<^\ ci!io, which does away with note 1 on p. 34. On p. 33, read in 1. 5, ^ooil^ ^cn^,

and in 1. 6, ^ 1 1 i? limnNo. Consequently, delete note 3 on p. 34, regarding the word ^^ -; ^^ P* 34, read in 1. 4 of the Syriac text, ]nsiSo?, " which proclaims/^ and delete note 4.

Lastly, in 1. 9, instead of o iN^o read o ■ 1 •o.

On the third section of the Prolegomena I have but few remarks to make. Lives extracted from the biographical work of John of Ephesus occur in one or two manuscripts besides those named by Dr. Land ; e.g., 14730 and 18814. A small portion of the Leges StBCulares is to be found in 18295, fol. 147 rect., written a.d., 1603. The MS. 12164, contains short ex-

1863.] Anecdote Syriaca. 128

tracts both from John of Ephesus, fol. 201 vers., and

Rhetor, fol. 151 vers, and 158 rect. Some of the sayings of

Menander are given in the MS. 14614, fol. 114 rect. With

r^ard to the list of the Caliphs on p. 40^ I may mention that

the word erased after the name of Mohammed is not ] > ^\ but

the Arabic )]aa>3 (compare \jts>=iL2j, a little farther on) ; the

5 is still visible even to the naked eye. There is a very similar list in the MS. 17193 (of the eighth or ninth century), fol. 17 rect. and vers., of which I subjoin the text : —

oooi InSso )Lqd;o \jS^y IZos^Lo ^ lo-ioJ^) )£Di^ %r>oZ

jAo ^ilJiolo .^ X^^ *.i:qo qs^] |joi 5Z^ ^; yC^^^] •U-Lj* W^ ^^^^^ Ijoi 5A2D ^^1!d1o .IoL W^ Joinik, ]jai

oi5Aoo .l^ Uil» .^A^Vn^r^^ >^^^1 Ijoi SAoo ^[.ooari V^-iJ

Of the Palestinian or Jemsalemite fragments I can at pre- sent say nothing, not having as yet examined them ; but I do trust that Dr. Land has deciphered them more correctly than he has done the small specimen given in tab. xviii. (see p. 90). We should read : —

* These words are on the margin.

l^.

124 Anecdota Syriaca. [April,

'^ 7%e«e are Syro-Edessene canons fhymns), purchased by the Deacon Surur, son of the Deacon 'Abdu ^l-Maslh. May Crod have mercy on his pai'enis. Amen. Syro-Edessene canons for every day during the whole year"

The manuscript is not a lectionary, but a collection of canons,

]}<^m nALo ^QlJ-O^ arranged according to the eight \is^y or tones. Dr. Land ought to have noticed the Arabic lines on fol. 273 rect. of the manuscript^ where the names of both persons are written distinctly. As for the " vocabulum Ibericum " of note 2, it is simply the name of Surur written in Greek letters {aovpovp) just under the last line that he has facsimiled.

The work of Elias of Nisibis^ from which Dr. Land has edited a long section, p. 45—48, is a very important one in every way. Though certainly not autograph, the manuscript must have been written during the lifetime of the author (say about a.d. 1000), for the Arabic translation — in parallel columns to the Syriac — is almost Kufic in its appearance. Dr. Land's text is unhappily

even more incorrect than usual. Page 45, 1. 8, read oil^>o$ ]Ldcu J ; 1. 6, ^p*225 ; 1. 7, W^'oiCD ; 1. 8, A!:^^ ©1 ^-iJL# ^iiZ

1. 15, 1Ajl» *^cn>; 1. 19, ^i^Soo. Page 46, 1. 7, ^Uano

^■\nnif^]]|Q and VJLZl;; 1. 10, U^2.> ]^ocu; 1. 17, UjlS>o2.9 ]1oq^ : 1. 18, lAlZo ; 1. 19, tajJouCD ; 1. 20, V^^- Page 47, 1. 2, ^All ^AlZ; 1. 11, l,iV>2.0; 1. 12, ^loSlo; L 14, ^1 MH ^yl; 1. 27 and 29, ]>iV)Zo: Page 48, 1. 1,

]i iV>2.o.

The Palaeographical Observations, p. 56—101, are, to my mind, the most interesting and best written part of the Prole- gomena. The tables that accompany them are also, on the whole, well executed, and to a certain extent supply a want that was beginning to be painfully felt. Some of the facsimiles are

1863.] Anecdota Syriaca. 125

Temarkably good^ e.g., tab. ii. and ir. ; bat others are inferior^ such as tab. B^ no. 1^ and tab. xviii.^ no. 88 ; whilst tab. xiv.^ no. 72 is a decided failure^ the lower writing being several shades too dark, and the upper both too dark and too coarse and blotted. Dr. Land judges^ I thiuk^ too harshly when he speaks of the vellam mannscripts of the seventh and following centuries as being usually '^ minus nitidse '' (p. 56). The specimens that we possess of the handwriting of Saba of Bas-^ain^ written be- tween A.D. 720 and 780^ are masterpieces of calligraphy, and, so far as I have observed, the scribe makes no vain boast when

he adds after his name the words^ «-oA2 |] ]Vy>ln^ oZ;,

•

"who never made a blotted tau" As a general rule, however, the older the manuscript, the more beautiful are both vellum and handwriting.

As Dr. Land has said little or nothing about the Nitrian palimpsests, I may be allowed to make a few observations on the subject. The number of such manuscripts is by no means inconsiderable, and amongst them are specimens of parchment that has been thrice written upon. The most famous of these is the Licinianus, first edited by Pertz; but the MS. 17136 contains four leaves that once formed part of a very ancient copy of the Greek Gospels,*' as well as three leaves of Syriac text which are likewise ter scripta. The same little volume contains a good many leaves that were taken from an old Syriac copy of St, PauPs Epistles, and a few from some other book. The palimpsest Iliad and Gospel of St. Luke, edited by Cureton and Tischendorf, are too well known to require more than mere mention. 14642 is a Greek palimpsest (uncial), apparently frag- ments of a Catena of the eighth or ninth century. 14637 and 14638 seem to be fragments of Greek Evangelistaria (uncial) of about the same date. The MS. 14490 and 17127 contain large portions of a Syriac translation of the writings of Galen. The running title (at the top of the first page of each quire) has been preserved in several places, and seems to be *ffno ■ CDOi.^

,mn % ^\^^ |)ut I am not quite sure of the first word. 14496 contains part of the treatise of Sevems of Antioch against Gram- maticus, ^ZVZ.; trDOOi fcV^^^VN'^noN} *.l$olfiD w»^^ and also of the New Testament, as appears from the running title preserved on one leaf, tj|SnsV) ^jlk»q^> U-^^iO, lesson for St.

John the Baptist. 14500 is palimpsest throughout, but would require the application of chemical means to enable one to make

' See Tischendorf B Greek Testamentj seventh edition, 1859, p. clx., and hia ManumeiU, 3aer, inedU, nov. coUeet.^ toI. ii.

126 Anecdoia Syriaca. [April,

out its contents. 14607 is made up of fragments of three, if not four, older manuscripts, among which is a fine copy of the

Feshitta version of the Book of Judges, ]ft<^». In 14512 we have the remains of, I think, three manuscripts, one of Isaiah,

another with the running title ^>oau V^nnnSi, against the

Jews (probably discourses of Mar Jacob of Serug), and a third uncertain. 14615 is palimpsest throughout, probably liturgical, as the first leaf contains the beginning of the Anaphora of 8i, James. 14623 is a splendid manuscript of Ephraem Syrus, in three, columns, of the fifth or sixth century. What makes the destruction of this manuscript the more to be regretted is that it contains some hitherto unedited works of Ephraem. The run- ning titles are tffl i t)^ooi> and >rr)0 1 V)0?>, which signify dis- courses addressed to Hypatius and to Domnus. Luckily a small portion, containing the first discourse addressed to Hypatius and part of the second, has escaped the hands of the destroyer, and

is bound up with other fragments in 14574. The title is Ixx^ !■ \(j ]i eh\fi . ^nnoS tPHi fcjg>oai, to Hypatius , against false

doctrines. We have two of these discourses in another manu- script, and a fragment in a third. 14646 is a fine copy of Isaiah, and 14651 of the Gospels. 17135 contains parts of at least two manuscripts, which I have not as yet identified. 17137 is made up of fragments of three manuscripts, among which are a few leaves of a fine old copy of the Syriac Gospels. 17164 is a beautiful manuscript of St. Chrysostom^s Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, and also contains Jeremiah, ch. xxii. and xxiii. 17191 contains fragments of the JBooA<>/'£^e*tc/; 17195 of the Book of Numbers, the twelve lesser Prophets, and the Epistle to the Hebrews; 17196 of the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, and of the Epistles to the Galatians and the Hebrews. 17206 contains fragments of a Service Book, and a considerable portion of another manuscript. The only leaf of the latter on which I could read anything seems to refer to Constantine and the Vision of the Cross. 17183 is a Coptic palimpsest, a lan- guage with which I am unacquainted. 17138 contains Moham- medan forms of prayer in the Arabic character, probably of the fourth century of the Hijra. It is a good specimen of old Arabic writing, though not equal to 7197 (Elias of Nisibis, see above), nor to the single vellum leaf in the binding of 14520 (part of an old collection of traditions). Besides the above, which are either wholly or in great part palimpsest, not a few of the Nitrian manuscripts contain some palimpsest leaves^ but these I have not room at present to euuraerate. There may also be some palimp-

1863.] Anecdota Syriaca. 127

sests among those volumes which I have not yet had time to examine.

With r^ard to the writing materials of the ancient Syrians^ I have found several recipes for the manufacture of their ink in our manuscripts. The oldest is on one of the fly-leaves of 14644, written both in Arabic and Karshun, and dating appa- r^itly from the fourth century of the Hijra. In 14632, the first seventeen leaves of which are paper of the twelfth or thirteenth century, are two others, the one on fol. 1 rect., at the foot of the page, the other on fol. 17 vers., at the foot of the page. I shall take an opportunity of publishing these elsewhere. _

Whether the scribes of Edessa, Bas-'ain, and Amid wrote with a reed or a quill is a matter rather of curiosity than of importance. Dr. Land decides in favour of the latter instrument on the strength of an obscure colophon in the MS. 14551. Unfortunately his, or rather the Bev. H. J. Rose's, copy of these few lines is disfigured by several mistakes. Correctly

transcribed it runs as follows : — «.Ala>j; Is^ ^o\(^A3 <^»io ]]

I do not pretend to be able to translate this sentence, be- cause I am not quite certain of the meaning of the words

l^iSblZ. » aSnn ; but Mr. Rose's rendering, " semen tuum bene- dictum^' (he read ^^^oLo) '^ spargens lampadum fuligine, in agrum {i.e,, pellem) animalis, alis volucris,'' is simply impossible ; be- cause (1) ^'1 is marked by the point under it as a perfect, scat-

tered or has scattered; (2) ]i<^Cnrft is plural, and therefore can- not mean '^lampblack,'' even supposing ]Sq£D ever to have that

signification ; (3) (iViSnmn ^^loLo must necessarily be taken together in the sense ot pickled or preserved with drugs, seasoned

with spikes, or something similar ; and (4) IZq-Lm and ^LkSiSi

are plurals, animals and birds. Hence Dr. Land's inference falls to the ground.*^ However, something may still be said in favour

' In the translation of the Syriac lines, p. 5^, read eripiantur and habeanlur, hecan^e <^)nA^ i and —.^O^Ui^are the third person plaral fern., referring

^< • • • ^ • ■

apparently to ^j/ - ^Vn..> The word -*^^ seems to me to be equivalent to the Arabic ij \^i and not

128 Anecdoia Syriaca. [Aprils

of the quill. I remarked in many even of our older manu- scripts the single word ] ■> <^<'>^ written on the mai^n^ without its having any reference to the text, and this troubled me for a

long time; till at length I found the fuller phrases V».£X>QJ l$^ja> and lZa^>;o l'^>^? 1-i-CDQJ, trial of the pen, and trial of the pen and ink (see 17128, fol. 180 vers.}, 1»^^> ViLjODOJ lZi!£il)ol, trial of the black ink (see 21210, fol. 146 rect.),

m

Ji!^ L^joeTy trial of the kalem. From this last I concluded

that the instrument used was in all cases the ordinary reed of the East; but not long ago 1 observed in 17185, fol. 60 rect.,

the words ]l ^N^t? 1^^^? U-CDQJ, which I can at present only

render, trial of the quill-pen.

The remaining sections of Dr. Land's Prolegomena surest to me many other observations, but want of space obliges me to confine myself chiefly to § 22 (p. 94), which treats of the Syriac numerical notation.

Dr. Land speaks of these arithmetical figures (long known to Dr. Cureton and B. H. C.) as being of rare occurrence. He remarked them indeed in only five manuscripts, to which in the Preface (p. xi.) he adds a sixth. Had he said that they occur in fifty or sixty of our manuscripts he would have been nearer the mark. They are used in many of our oldest manuscripts, either in conjunction with the letters of the alphabet or alone, to number the quires (generally of eight or ten leaves) of which they are composed. For instance, the quires of 14528, from which Dr. Land copied the Leges SactUares, are so numbered, though he did not remark it. He might also have found them in 14574, where they are used to number the hymns of Ephraem, and in 14620, fol. 12 vers., where a complete list of them is given as follows : —

yu 200 "7<>00 70 © 20

OOOO 80 -yo 8^ ^yu 400 yOOOO 90 OO 40^

r

1868,] Anecdota^Syriaat. 129

Here 20 is denoted by vi tingle circlet, and I do not remem* ber having ever seen it otherwise, except in 17202, where two are nsed (see Land, p. 95). Occasionally the fignres are com- pounded in a different manner, as in 17209,- where we find the following : —

L-> » T

^f 13

16 k^ fj^ 14

IT " i:

At the end of 14603, but in a more modern hand than the rest of the manuscript, are the following lines : —

7

^^ //-^^fj^t •00700/^/^

HH 00

000 / ""^ 1 0^0000

which are to be explained thus : —

David the sinner , son of Denha the presbyter, from the city cf Arzan (or ArzunJ. Brethren, pray for me. Amen.

The numerical figures are, as I have said, found chiefly in oar older ma.nuscripts. They seem to me to go out of use about the ninth century, and to have fallen completely into oblivion before paper became abundi^t. I have indeed found them in one paper manuscript, 14684, which may be assigned to the twelfth century; but in it they appear in conjunction not only with the Syriac letters, but also with rudely drawn Greek letters, and were in all probability merely copied by the scribe from the

NEW SERIES. — ^VOL. III., NO. V. K

130 A»eedota,^jfriaca. [Aprils

older manuscript that lay before bim. Only tbree quires are bo numbered^ somewhat as follows : —

C/O cv

6

/"

)

On § 23 of Dr. Land^ Prolegomena I would merely remark that what he says of the marks denoting quotations is correct. He might have added that other forms are also used, such as »- or V^ , and that in the case of a double quotation, that is, where

the author dted qootes the words of a third writer, we find a double mark, like ^ ^ or ^'— *> different coloured inks being' also sometimes employed. I may add that the interjection o] is distinguished from the conjunction ol by a mark resembling the Arabic teshdid, 6*1, which has been converted in the later manu- scripts and in our printed books into a straight line, d].

I cannot conclude this brief review of Dr. Land's work without expressing my hope that he will not misinterpret any- thing that I have said above. Personally I have, as he must be aware, none but kindly feelings towards him, and I shall be most happy to give him my assistance whenever he chooses to avail himself of it. But, as an Orientalist, I cannot, in a case like the present, hold my peace. European scholars know as yet but very little of the Aramaic dialects and literatures, and if the stream of knowledge is to be polluted at its very source, how can we expect it to flow clearly afterwards? What we want at present are faithful reproductions of the ancient texts, with or without translations, according to the inclination of the editor. If fie does not render them into some European language, others soon will. But unless the printed book is a careful copy of the manuscript, the task of the student and translator, who may very likely be unable to inspect the original, is made far more laborious, and accuracy becomes impossible, because the neces- sary basis is wanting.

William Wright.

1868.] ( 181 )

THE SAXABITAir PENTATEUCH.*

Several of the Christian fathers have mentioned a Samaritan Pentatench as existing apart from that of the Jews. The last who refers to it, so far as I am aware, is Jerome. After him it was lost sight of; and when it had lain concealed for upwards of a thousand years, its very existence began to be doubted. At length Pietro Delia Yalle, an eminent Italian traveller, procured a complete copy during his travels in the East in the year 1616. H. de Sancy, who was then the French ambassador at Constan- tinople, obtained this copy and sent it to the library of the Ora- torie at Paris in 1628. It was first examined and described by Morin, and subsequently printed in the Paris Polyglott Bible. Jerome Aleander writes in 1688 that a copy of the Samaritan Pentatench had existed in the Vatican for some time. This copy was procured by Cardinal Scipio, the then library keeper, for three hundred crowns, but had remained without any particular attention paid to it. Not long after this Archbishop Ussher procured six copies from the East ; and in 1657 Bishop Walton printed the text in his fiimous Polyglott Bible. Several more copies were procured from the East, and Dr. Eennicott had no fewer than sixteen for the edition of his Hebrew Bible in 1776-80.

Let US now briefly enquire into the origin of this Pentateuch. On this siubject learned men have entertained various opinions. The most unfounded of all was the one advocated by Ussher. He would have it that it was the production of one Dositheus, a Samaritan impostor, who pretended to be the Messiah, and founded a sect of his own among his people. It was supposed that Dositheus made use of the Hebrew text and the version of tlie LXX. ; and comparing these, sometimes adding, other times expunging, and again altering as he deemed fit, produced a Pentateuch of his own. Nothing, however, could be more un- founded than such an hypothesis. This heresiarch could have had no object whatever in compiling a new Pentateuch, unless for the sake of tampering with those passages which are consi- dered as referring to the Messiah. None of these, however, have been corrupted ; as all the passages of this class agree in the Samaritan and Hebrew texts. And, moreover, it is well known that the Alexandrian Samaritans were thoroughly opposed to Dositheus, and it is not likely that they would have received a Pentateuch compiled by him.

Another hypothesis, held in our own country by Prideaux

« Read by the Rev. John MiUs, F.R.A.S., before the members of the Syro- BgTptun Sootety. Jaauary 13th, 1863.

K 2

182 The Samaritan Pentateuch. [April,

and on the continent by Hottinger and others, is that Manasseh took with him from Jerusalem one of Ezra's corrected copies, and transcribed it into the old characters to which they were accustomed. This hypothesis rests upon the assumption that the variations in the Samaritan from the Hebrew are such as were occasioned in the transcription by mistaking letters similar in Hebrew, but unlike in the Samaritan. This, however, is a mistake, and there is no foundation for such a supposition.

Le Clerc, and others after him, advocated an older origin for the copy. He held that it was made by the priest who was sent by the king of Assyria to instruct the new inhabitants in the religion of the country, as narrated in 2 Kings xvii. But I need not point out that such an hypothesis is not only unsup- ported by historical testimony^ but is also contrary to the tenour of the whole narrative. The business of the priest was not to compile a code of instruction^ but simply to instruct the people out of the code as it then existed.

It is evident that there is but one rational and consistent account of its origin. Copies of the Pentateuch must have been multiplied among Israel as well as among Judah, and preserved by the one equally as by the other. Nor is it probable that the people^ when carried captive into Assyria, took with them all the copies of the law ; that not one remained among the remnant left behind : and had such been the case the priest himself, as a matter of course, would have possessed a copy.

This copy became the religious textbook of the Samaritans, and has ever since remained among them ; separate on the one hand from the Jews, and on the other hand from the Gentiles. Such was the theory first and ably advanced by Morin, and subsequently adopted by Houbigant, Cappellus, Michaelis, Ken- nicott, Stuart and a host of others. In fact^ sound criticism is bound up to it. The Samaritan copy, therefore, as well as the Jewish, flowed from the autograph of Moses, and the two are only different recensions of the same original copy.

Such, briefly, is the non-Samaritan account of the copy. They themselves, however, assert that not only has their Penta- teuch proceeded from the original work of Moses ; but also, that tliey have now in their possession a copy written by Abishua, the great-grandson of Aaron. This they keep most sacred. It is never exhibited, even to their own people, but once a year, on the day of atonement. As the writer of this paper was the first non-Samaritan that has ever been allowed to examine it, I shall before proceeding, but without entering into details, very briefly describe it.

I scarcely need mention that this venerable copy is not a

1868.] 7^ Samaritan Pentateuch. 133

manuscript book^ but a roll. When the minister had brought it from its place of concealment and reraoyed its red satin cover, wliich was ornamented with Samaritan inscriptions embroidered in golden letters, I found that it was kept in a cylindrical silver case which opened on two sets of hinges, made so as to expose a whole column of the reading. This case is ornamented with relievo work describing the Samaritan temple with all its sacred contents. The roll itself is of what we call parchment, a material much older than that name, written in columns thirteen inches deep and seven and a half inches wide. The writing is in a fair hand; but not nearly so large or beautiful as some of their book-copies which I had previously examined. The writing being rather small, each column contains from seventy to seventy-two lines, and the whole roll contains a hundred and ten columns. The name of the scribe is written in a kind of acrostic, and forms part of the text, running through three €K)lumn8, and is found in the book of Deuteronomy. Whether it be the real work of the great-grandson of Aaron, as indicated in the writing, and I know of no valid reason for disbelieving it, the roll has all the appearance of very high antiquity ; and is wonderfully well preserved considering its venerable age. It is worn out and torn in many places and patched with re-written parchment ; in other places, where not torn, the writing is un- readable. But it seemed to me that about two-thirds of the original is still readable. The skins of which the roll is com- posed are of equal size, and measure each twenty-five inches long and fifteen inches wide.

I have now the honour of exhibiting a transcript of that ancient copy ; its history is briefly this. In a foot-note at the end of the first volume I find that the writer was a servant of Tabiah ben Itschak, a priest of the IVlost High at Shechem. He does not mention the date; but I was told by Amram, the present priest, that it was written in the fourteenth century, and had been preserved in the priest's family ever since.

During my stay amongst them in 1860 it was kindly lent me by the priest, on certain conditions ; the first, I believe, that was ever given out of their community with official sanction.

I shdl now briefly describe it ; and in so doing I shall in the first place point out its peculiar characteristics as a writing.

I. The first is, the characters in which it is written. These are essentially difierent from those that have been in use among the Jews, now for about two thousand years. I shall not enter into the discussion whether the present Hebrew alphabet be originally Chaldee, and adopted by the Jews during their cap- tivity, or the result of a gradual change and modification of their

)34 2%tf Sannaritan Pentateuch. [Aprils

original ; one thing is pretty certain^ that at the commencement of Christianity the Jews and Samaritans had the identical alpha- bets which they now have^ and consequently differed as much then as they now do.

Let it also be observed that the monumental or printed Samaritan alphabet differs from the written as much as the Hebrew differs from the monumental.' I shall not at present attempt to discuss the origin of the written test, but merely say that it appears to me that the monumental is a modification of it^ and that the Hebrew is a farther modification of the monu« mental. Whether the latter was accomplished before the cap- tivity^ according to the majority of critics^ or after that period^ according to others, is perhaps a matter of doubt. I shall only add on this subject, that the present Samaritans are only ac* quainted with the monumental type as used in Walton's Po/y- ghtt and CastePs Lexicon. I had taken with me specimens of the alphabet adopted by Scaliger, and the letters which Castel affirms are especially used in manuscripts, but they were unknown to the priest.

II. Again, it is written mthoui vowel points. I hardly need mention that all the Shemitic languages, like the present Arabic, were written without any marks to exhibit the vowel sounds of the language. Whether this system was of the same nature as the modem systems of short-hand writing, where the consonants only are written, and the vowels to be supplemented, or whether it contained the essential vowels, is not for me now to discuss* The singular system of the Masorites was elaborated professedly to retain the traditional pronunciation of the Hebrew language; but their vowel signs were never introduced into the synagogue roll. In this the Samaritan and Jewish rolls agree.

So the Samaritans, in reading the law, have retained two things not expressed in the writing.

(I.) The vowel sounds of their language. And here let it be observed that the Samaritan alphabet corresponds letter for letter with the Hebrew alphabet. Benjamin of Tudela tells us that they do not possess the three letters, he, cheth, and atn, and other authors have followed the Babbi ; but this is a mistake. Nor is there any foundation for the remark of Hottinger and others, that their pronunciation is rough ; but, on the contrary, it is upon the whole more soft than the Hebrew. As, for ex- ample, the cheth — ^they call //, and treat it as a semi- vowel ; con- sequently, while the Jews would say Rachel, the Samaritan

* Here Mr. Mills exhibited the manugcript alphabet as written for him by the priest, together with the monumental Samaritan and the present Hebraw in Jaxtaposition.

1868.] The Samanian Pentateuch. 18S

would say Rdel. Where two or more consonants oome together they uniformly add the vowels in reading. As, for example, the word fcMT king written with mem, lamed, agth, they pronounce mdlek. On the other hand, their pronunciation of the vowel letters is not uniform. For example ; the letter jod they some- times sound as short a, as in caddeh, ''holy''; and sometimes as ahort t, as in yummim, ''days''; thusj evidently, by tradition re- taining the pronunciation of their forefathers.

(2.) Another peculiarity not expressed in the writing is the intonatum. It is well known to every Hebrew scholar that the law is read in the synagogue in a style peculiar to itself. It is not a chant, because there is no melodial progression, but a kind of cantillation. In the Jewish system the accents are adopted for musical notation; each accent has a musical value, and the syllable to which it belongs must be read with the intonation belonging to it. The cantillation varies, it is true, in different countries; but which among them, in modern times, retains most of the character of the ancient is difficult to de- termine. The European Jews in the thirteenth century sup- posed that their brethren in Chaldea had still retained the ancient style^

The same remark applies also to the Samaritans — they have their cantillation, but differing materially in its character from that of the Jews on the one hand, and that of the Mohammedans on the other. I have no doubt that it is substantially the same now, as it used to be two thousand years ago.

The manuscript, however, is not void of all kind of marks ; there are a few diacritical signs, if I may so call them. The most common is a dot which is placed after every word, and which is never omitted except at the end of a line. Another is a small stroke placed over letters and has more than one signi- ficatk>n. Sometimes it implies that an ambiguous word is not to be taken in its most common acceptation ; as for example, S^ means to Or at, but ^, means God. At other times the stroke is a sign of apocope, iw for nni. Sometimes two points are placed thas : after a word, and answer pretty much to our colon. There are two or three other marks, the meaning of which I have not yet been able to discover. The ends of sections are distinguished by various signs. The most common is one con- sisting of two double dots, baring a line between, thus : z. I •There is apparently no rule in the choice of these signs, but they d^)end upon the fancy of the writer, as we find them differing in diffisrent manuscripts.

(8.) Another characteristic peculiar to the Samaritan manu- script, I believe, is the manner of comntencement. I hardly need

136 The Samaritan PetUaieueh. [April,

mention that the Samaritan like all the Shemitie languages reads from right to left ; and, consequently, that a book begins with them where those in Western- languages end. But the peculiarity always observed by the Samaritans, is to commence the manuscripts on the inside page, and by no means on the outside. To this rule they adhere most scrupulously, and it would be observed as rigidly in printed copies if it were in their power to have them printed. When I expressed my intention to have the present copy printed, the priest called my attention to this rule over and over again as a most important one. The idea is to imitate the sacred roll, which is written only on the inside; and, consequently, none of the text exposed but when opened for the purpose of being read.

(4.) The last characteristic in the writing is the detached state of the words. I have already stated that every word is separately marked by a point — a rule which is never neglected. Thus the Samaritans separate each word not only by a space, but also by a point, as did the ancient Greeks and Romans. On the other hand, no word whether short or long is ever divided. When it happens that the space at the end of a line is too small to admit of the word being inserted, they never write a part of the word and carry the other part to the following line, but carry the last letter of the previous word to the end of the line. In thia manner no blank is left at the end of any line, but near the end, that the idea of completeness may be retained.

I shall now mention the divisions. The copy before xA is divided into two volumes; the first comprising Genesis and Exodus, and the second comprising the three remaining books. This division is, of course, only an accidental one, for the conye- nience of using the manuscript. Its essential divisions are as follows : —

1. Firstly, it is divided into five separate books. In this, however, it differs from the original manuscript, and all the other Samaritan scrolls, as well as the Jewish, which are written in one continuous document. This division into five books seems to have originated with the Alexandrian critics, who applied, for the first time, the term Pentateuch to the sacred document. And this division has been followed by Jews and Samaritans in their private copies for the sake of convenience <^ reference, but never in their public scrolls. In the Hebrew the several books take their names from the first word or words in each book, as Bereshith in Genesis ; but in the Samaritan copy, they are called first book, second book, and so on. But it is of importance that we should bear in mind that the original and true idea of the writing is, that it is one book only, one docu-

1868.] The SamarUm Pentateuch. 187

ment; bence its name, ^Vl^» ^^ l&v* Nor has it any existence in the Samaritan mind as five separate books, but only one divine law.

2. Secondly^ each book has been divided into sections (KeU sinj ; and the number of sections stated at the end of each book. The first contains 250; the second 200; the third 134; the fourth 218 ; the fifth 160; or 972 in all. Here it will be borne in mind that the Jewish division of the law into fifty-four Sed* roth, and each Sederah again into seven Parshipih^ differs essen- tially from the Samaritan. The Samaritan Keinn and the Jewish Parshioth coincide in a great number of places, but differ in others, — ^they were evidently made independent of Jewish sections as well as of Alexandrian critics. Some of them end and begin in the middle of our verses. For example, in Gen. viii. 21 we have the first clause, *' And the Lord smelled a sweet savour,'^ punctuated in the Hebrew with a segol; and in the Septnagint, as well as modern versions generally, with a semicolon ; but in the Samaritan this clause ends a section, and the following section commences with the second clause, ^' And the Lord said in his heart,^' etc. All these divisions into sec- tions, however, as well as into books, both in the Samaritan and Hebrew copies, are post-biblical, — there is no historical founda- tion for believing that they existed till after the Septuagint translation. I may add, that the sections in this Samaritan copy are distinguished nut only by space, but also by peculiar signs, generally varying ; I have not been able as yet to make out whe- ther these figures have any signification, or are they merely rude ornaments.

3. Thirdly, there is one other division, not an arbitrary and post-biblical one, but one which is co-existent with, and an essen- tial part of the law itself — the division into prose and poetry. I shall not dwell at present upon this point although a most im- portant one, inasmuch as it belongs equally to the Jewish as to the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Let us now look for a moment at its documentary cha- racter. I need not mention that it has been differently esti- mated by different critics ; but with the work before us, and all the historical facts connected therewith, we need not be led astray by any vague and reckless speculations. A family of manuscripts which can be traced back seven centuries before the Christian era, and manuscripts that have been written with no common accuracy and care, speak for themselves regarding their value in Biblical criticism. This leads me to mention the varia- tions that exist between the Samaritan and Jewish copies. Apart from a few verbal, and the great number of variations in the mere

188 The Samarium Pentateuch, [April,

letterSj the principal differences are contained in the history of the plagues of Egypt. The uttowices of the Almighty against Pharaoh are uniformly recorded twice in the Samaritan text ; firstly, when delivered by the Almighty to Moses, and again when repeated by Moses m the presence of Pharaoh. But in the Hebrew text they are only given once ; generally, at the time when delivered by the Eternal. Now one of two things is obvious, either the Samaritans have wilfully inserted these repe- titions into the text, or else the Jewish scribes have omitted them as unnecessary. I shall not enter into this subject at pre- sent, but merely say that to me it appears more evident that the latter is the fact. A careful reading will discover, that in the present Hebrew text there are abrupt transitions from one sub« ject to another, leaving chasms in the narrative, and thus mak- ing plain that something has been left out of the original his^ tory. But not so in the Samaritan text — ^here we find the nar- rative full and connected.

Among the vast number of smaller additions there are some most interesting and important; but I shall not now take up time in the discussion of them. Perhaps you will allow me to refer to one, which is made still more interesting by some of the unscholarlike assertions of Bishop Colenso. In Deuteronomy v. 81, when Moses recapitulates to the people the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, we are expressly told that those laws were not given to be observed during the wilderness journey, but only when they had settled down in the promised land. The words are these— but we must bear in mind that the scene was at Mount Sinai. The Almighty commands Moses, saying, *^ Gto say to them (the people of Israel), Get you into your tents again. But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.'' Now it is important to ob- serve that this very passage is inserted in the Samaritan copy in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, as well as here.

I cannot dismiss this subject without adverting to Gesenius, who, as is weU known, in 1815, published an essay on the Sama- ritan Pentateuch ; and a more unfounded and reckless perform- ance seldom issued from the press. This celebrated lexicographer has arranged all the readings which differ from the Hebrew text into eight different classes. I shall not follow him in detail, but confine myself to a single example. Let us take one from the seventh class — a most important one — where the critic asserts that the ancient pure Hebraism of the Pentateuch has been con- formed to their own idiom by the Samaritan scribes. As a

)863.] 7^ Samaritan Pentateuch. 189

proof of this, among many similar ones^ he brings forward the feminine pronoun thou, in Oenesis xii. 11; xiii. 24; xlvii. 39. Here he finds the Hebrew pronoun in the short form p^, but the Samaritan in the long form tm ; he therefore jumps at the concluBion that the Samaritan scribes ha^e altered the word to conform it to their own idiom. But what Hebrew scholar does not know that the longer form is the more ancient of the two? And no one knew this better than Oesenius himself. Indeed, in his lexicon, where he had no object in view but gram- matical truths he gives us this explanation. These are his words : "t^. Although this form is rare in the Old Testament (and then he quotes several passages), yet there can be no doubt that it is genuine, and it is even /primary, and a more ancient form, which afterwards the more negligent pronunciation of the com- mon people shortened into n^.'^' Such is the explanation of GeseniuB in his Hebrew lexicon ; yet, when criticizing the Sama- ritan Pentateuch, for the sake of damaging its character, he will have us to believe that this form of the pronoun is not the ancient and pure Hebrew, but a modification made by the Samaritan scribes to conform it to their own idiom. I might thus follow Gesenias through all his sections, and shew how utterly ground- less are his charges against the Samaritan scribes, and how grossly unfiEdr and dishonestly he treats their sacred volume : but this specimen shall suffice.

And yet biblical scholars have received such prejudiced pro- ductions for real criticism, and have pretty well abided by its decisions. It only shews how biblical scholars, as do scholars in other departments of learning, follow certain leaders without examining for themselves.

In conclusion let me remind you, that in more than two thousand instances where the Samaritan differs from the Hebrew, the Septuagint agrees with the former; a fact that speaks for itself with regard to the documentary and critical value of the Samaritan text.

' It 18 rery singnlar to obsenre that most of the yariationB in the Samaritan text, diarged by C^senioB to the wilful cormption of the scrihes, are simply the retention of the Ahevi letters {^wi) which are left oat of the Hebrew text after the adoption of the Masoretic system of ponctnation, and even when the Keri readings agree with the Samaritan t !

( 140 ) [April,

OBrrUABT— DB. EDWABD BOBIKSON.

It is with regret that we record the decease of this eminent man, whose writings have been so popular and useful, especially in the domain of Biblical lexicography and the geography of Palestine. His translation of Gesenius' Hebrew Xexicon, and his Greek and EjigliBh Lexicon to the New Testament^ are books which have been extensively used in this country, as well as in America. Of his Biblical Researches in Palestine it is super- fluous to speak. The following notice of him appeared in the Boston Congregationalist of Feb. 13.

" Hahdlt had the grave closed over one of the ablest preachers and theolo- gians of oar ooantry, when the American chnrches were called to moam the toss of their most renowned Biblicjd scholar and philolog^r.* As compared with Dr. Beecher, Dr. Robinson was yet in middle life — not having com- pleted his sixty-ninth year. Dr. Beecner had finished his work, and with the gradual decay of his powers, had retired not only fh)m public life, bat from all social intercourse outside of his own family. Dr. Robinson, thoaeh broken in health, and threatened with loss of siffht, was in the full vigour of his mental powers, and was carefully prosecuting the cherished work of his life, for which all his studies, travels, and writings, were only preparatory. Dr. Beecher, in his prime, was far more widely known as a power in the chnrches, but he never held or sought any rank among scholars. Dr. Robinson had almost no reputa- tion as a preacher, and no gift of popularity ; but in the patient labours of the study, he accomplished more for sound Biblical learning in the United States, and for the reputation of our theological seminaries with European scholars, than any other man of his generation. It would be difficult to determine which of these two lives — the one of concentrated and intensified public action, the other of prolonged and enthusiastic labour in the study — ^has rendered the most substantial and permanent benefit to the churches at large, and to the interests of Biblical theology in our land. To attempt such a comparison would be ungracious ; the great Head of the church designated each of these favoured sons of Connecticut K>r the highest eminence and usefulness in his own department of the field.

" Dr. Robinson's life as a scholar, though extending over nearly a half cen- tury, may be summed up in a few words. Having graduated at Hamilton Col- lege in 1816, he pursued for some years an independent course of philological studies, and in 1822-3, became associated with Professor 8tuart at Andover, as assistant instructor in sacred literature. This post he filled with great credit and usefulness for about five years — his patient accuracy of detail forming an admirable counterpoise to Professor Stuart's positive and sometimes hasty theories of interpretation. These two rare minds worked in admirable harmony.

** After an interval of two or three years spent in Germany, Dr. Robinson was, in 1830, appointed Professor Extraordinary in the department of Biblical literature in Andover Seminary. Here he commenced the publication of the Biblical Bewmtory— the first four volumes of which are a monument of his in- dustry, and his scholarly research in the philology and lexicography, the gramma^ and the geography of the sacred Scriptures. Retiring from this work in 1834, m consequence of the failure of his health, he announced, with touching modesty, that * it was by no means his intention to abandon the field of labour in which it had so long been the business and solace of his life to hold a humble place. But whether his days should be prolonged for the completion of other works illustrative of the Bible, or whether his race of life were soon to close, he would ever say, Thy will, O (>od, be done.'

" It was the will of God to spare him for nearly thirty years of labour in studies for which he shewed such remarkable aptitude. He had already pub- lished a revised edition of Calmet's Dictionary; and in 1836, he brought out his

■ ».«., Dr. Lyman Beecher, who was born at New Haven in 1775, and was a student under the well known Dr. Dwight. He was very distinguished as a controversialist, and as a preacher.

1863.] OUiuary.—Dr. Edward Robinson. 141

teinslation of tbe Hebrew Lexicon of Qosenins. Hatio^ studied with Gesenias, at the rery time when that great Hebraist was preparing his TheBOuna, and haying kept np with him a personal correspondence, eS". Bobinson was par- tieniariy aoalified to introduce his dictionary to American stndents. In both these woras he exhibited his careful scholarship and his modest piety. To en- oonrage a better system of Hebrew philology, and more sober and correct yiews of Bimical interpretation, to make ayailable to American stndents the rich resolts of German scholarship and of Oriental trayel, were the objects of his *■ anxions toil ;' while it was oyer his feryent prayer that his labours might * advance the canae of sacred literature in this country ; and aid in promoting the study of those Holy Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salyation/

*^ Soon after the publication of Oe9enius^ Dr. Robinson issued his own Oreek amd EngU$h Tjcxieon of the New Testament — a great improyement upon Wahl's Claviiy which he had translated in 1825. The reyised edition of this lexicon, published in 1850, is now the standaid of New Testament lexicography in the JBngliah tongue. It has been pirated in the mother country. This edition was fnbetantially a new work, enncbed by his experience as an instructor in Union Theoloffical Seminary, and by his obseryations in tbe Holy Land. It serves the threefold purpose of a lexicon, an analytical concordance, and a condensed gram- matical commentary.

" In 1837, Dr. Robinson was appointed professor in New York ; but being then bent npon his life-plan for the geographical exploration of Palestine, he did not enter upon his office till 1840, when he had completed his first Biblical Besearchee. This work gave him a European reputation, but it also provoked much acrid controversy, especially with regard to the topography of Jerusalem, a second visit, in 1852, enabled Dr. R. to verify and vindicate nis former conclu- sions. Yet controversy is by no means allayed ; and the recent tendency of both English and German scholarship, is to dispute resolutely Robuison's location of Akra, and the upper course of toe Tyropooon. But whatever may be the final determination ot these points — ^and I incline to the view that the head of the TyropoBon is to be sought, not at the Jafia, but at the Damascus gate — and whatever conclusions may be reached touching the site of Capernaum, the camping-ground at Sinai, and other identifications which Dr. Robinson believed himself to have settled, he will be held in lasting remembrance by scholars, as the author and exemplar of the true method of investigation. Reversing the habit of travellers who followed the ecclesiastical traditions which so cover the soil of Palestine, he made the Bible the first authority ; contemporary sources, especially Josephus, the second : the vernacular names of places, the third ; earlier travellers, the fourth, ana ecclesiastical traditions last and least of all ; indeed of * no value, except so far as supported by circumstances known to us from the Scriptures, or from other contemporary testimony.' If there is some- times an air of dogpnatism in Dr. Robinson's utterance of his conclusions, we can pardon this, in view of the painstaking accuracy of his researches, and the great value of many of his results.

** These researches, like most of the studies and plans of his life, were his pre- paration for a work on the ph^ical and historical geography of Palestine— of which I fear only the first section is finished. To this work. Dr. Robinson had eonsecrated the later years of his life ; but ill-health suffered him to proceed but slowly. At length the loss of sight led him to seek medical aavice in Germany ; but he returned without relief, and with little hope, and finally sank under his infirmities on Tuesday, the 27th ult., at his resiaence in New York. His JFnneral was attended on Friday, Jan. 30th, by a large concourse of ministers, and members of scientific and literary societies.*

'* I cannot better describe the results of Dr. Robinson's researches in Palestine than by the following incident. Some years ago, at an hotel in Cairo, a party oi young Englishmen, pupils of Stanley and graduates of Oxford, asked me con-

* In reference to Dr. Robinson's funeral, some may like to see a short note about it. We add one from an American paper a few days later, and quite enough for our purpose : — The funeral of Dr. Edward Robmson, Professor of Biblical Literature in Union Theological Seminary in New York, was held at the

14& ObUuary, — Dr. Edward Robinson. [April/

temptaoQBly, * Who is this eonntrynian of yonra, a Dr. RobinBoii, who attempts to set aside all the traditions of the sacred places ? Is he miich of a scholar? And what is his occupation ? '

" * He is the same,' I answered, * who has prepared an English edition of Gesenius, and a standard lexicon of the New Testament, which some country- man of yours has honoured by stealing bodily, and publishing in London without naming their author.'

" * Ah I indeed I — ^that certainly was not honourable.'

" Some days after I met the same party at Sinai. * Why, this Dr. Robinson of yours is a wonderfhl man I We find that Stanley quotes him continually. He is quite right here, in his Br Bahah and Sttfsafeh,' Afterwards in Palestine^ I often heard the same party extol my countryman.

" As the iconoclast of ecclesiastical traditions, Dr. Robinson aroused the prejudices of a hu*ge class of travellers, and of some earnest Biblical scholars. But his weighty arguments and facts orercame the prejudices of candid minds, and his learning and honesty commanded their respect. No man has done so much as he to raise the tone of scholarship in his own country, or to secure respect for American schohuvhip abroad.

*' Some weeks since, in couTersation with Dr. Robinson, I adrised him to emplo)r a careful assistant to complete his Biblical geography under his own supervision. But he was not a Prescott ; and he answered promptly, *• How could I trust cmyhody with my references and citations, that must be exact?' ^ Better this,' I replied, * than leaTc your life-work unfinished.' ^ No,' he sidd, with a tone of resignation, * it is all t&ere, in the BeaeareheSj for those who care about it, and with this blindness settling on me, I feel that my work is done.' Thus meekly did he relinquish the one great, cherished plan of life. But he has gone to see His face in whose earthly steps he followed, and to measure, with perfect vision, the glory of * Jerusalem that is above.' ** T.

" New York, Feb. 7th,"

The New Fork Christian Times says : —

" The Rev. Dr. Edward Robinson, the distinguished Professor of Biblical Literature in the Union Theological Seminary in this city, died at his residence in Greene Street, on Tuesday night last, Jan. 25th, of dropsy in the chest. His health had been failing for some time, and he had not attended actively to his labours for a year past. He visited Germany during the last summer for sur-

Sical treatment of his eyes, which were for some time threatened with entire eprivation of sight. Dr. Robinson was one of the most distinguished soholan of BibUoal learning in this country. He was a native of Connecticut, bom in 1794, graduated at Hamilton College in this State, in 1816, and went to Andover in 1821, where he studied Hebrew, and became associated with Dr. Stuart in the translation of some text books from the German, and in the instruction of his classes. In 1826 he went to Europe, where he studied four years, when he returned, and became Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover. He resigned his position in 1833, and removed to Boston. In 1837, he was appomted to the position in the Union Theological Seminary, which he had since hdd. Previous to entering upon his dutie8,he visited Palestine, and made a very minute and careful study of the country in connexion with the geogpraphv of the Bible. In 1841, he published the results of this study, in three octavo volumes, which have been one of the text-books. He had subsequently devoted much attention to the revision and perfection of this work, though he published some others connected with classical studies. Dr. R. married, in 1816, a daughter of the Rev. S. Kirkland, a mission- ary among the Oneida Indians, but she died three years after. In 1829, he married Miss Teresa A. L. Yon Jacob, daughter of Professor Von Jacob, of the University of Halle, a lady of rare ability and scholarship, whose writings and translations, under the name of * Talvi,' are widely known in this country and in Europe. She survives a husband who leaves also a son and daughter."

Mercer Street Presbyterian Church in that city on Friday last. Dr. Spring offered praver, Chancellor Ferrers read from the Scriptures, and Dr. Skinner nreached the Sermon. Among the pall-bearers were Rev. R. D. Hitchcock, Rev. J. J. Owen, and Rev. H. B. Smith.

1B68.] ( 148 )

COSBESPONDEKCK

[^We wUh our readen to wndeniand that we cannot be held reeponaible for the 9phwm9 of our coniributore and corretpondente. The utmoet we can do it to keep a emrefitl eye upon the literary character qf their communicationt, and to aee that they do mot tranaeend the Hmite ef faxr critieitm and laiefiU inquiry J]

THE EARLIER CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST BOOK OF BSDRAS, AND OF THE ELEVENTH BOOK OF THE JEWISH

ANTIQUITIES OF JOSEPHUS.

It appears from the paper on Biblical Chronology in the October num- ber of this Journal, that its author still wishes to take refuge behind the shield of the illustrious Newton. He also appeals confidently to those repositories of legendary fictioui the first book of the Apocryphal- £sdras, and the notorious third chapter^ of the eleventh book of the Jewish Antiquities of Joaephus, When Mr. Bosanquet tells us that according to his system " the books of Ezra, Nehemiah» Josephus, and SsdraSy may be shewn to be consistent one with the other, but not other- wise;'* he emphatically pronounces the condemnation of his own yiew. For the system which can reconcile the authentic history of Ezra with the silly tales of Josephus and the apocryphal Esdras (Ezra), must itself, from that very circumstance, be worthless, and full of improba- hilities and inconsistencies.

It has been already shewn that the writer of the letter on Biblical chronology has fallen into grave mistakes in his attempts to interpret Ctesias and the Book of Esther.* And we shall find that he has erred even more seriously when he incorrectly asserts, upon the supposed anthority of the notorious third chapter of the eleventh book of the

• In Ant.^ xi., iii., 1, Josephus seems to have borrowed, with certain altera- tions, the foUowiiig passage from the Book of Esther, '' Now in the first year of the king's reign, l)aria8 Hystaspes feasted the rulers of the Medes, and tbA princes of the Persians, and the toparchs of India and Ethiopia, and the generals (xf the armies of his hundred and twenty-seven prooincea.^* This empire of hundred and twenty-seven provinces seems to be identical with that descrioed in BBther i. 1, 3. Josephus, who, in the close of the immediately preceding chapter, had made special mention of the conquest of Egrypt by Cambyses, would therefore seem to speak, not of the Arabian bnt rather of the Ethiopian (or Afirican} Cosh. Mr. fiosanqnet will scarcely venture to assert of the one mmdred ana twentr-seven provinces of Darins Hystaspes, that ** they formed a limited portion c^ the vast Medo-Persian empire."

* Josephus is directly opposed to Mr. Bomnqnet on the subject of Ahasnerus tiie husband of Esther. For {Ant., xi., vi., 1) he expressly identifies this king with Artaxerxes Longimanue, the son of Xerxes, and adds, — " when Artaxerxes had taken tiie kingdom, and set governors over the hundred and twenty-seven provmces, from Sndia even nnto EthiopiaJ'* As Artaxerxes was sovereign of Egypt, we may suppose that Josephus deemed the Cush of the Book of Esther to be the African Ethiopia.

144 Correspondence. [Aprils

j^niiquUieB, the late arrival of Zerubbabd, at Jemaalem. Nay, he haa

8o far committed himself as to pat the very erroneoas statement in

italics.

J06EPHU8. Mb. Bosahquet.

" After the slaughter of the Magi, who npon the ** Now Zembbabel was

death of Cambyses, attained the government of the one of the body-guard

Persians for a year, those families who were called of Darius, the son of

the seven families of the Persians, appointed Darias, Hystaspes, cmd did not

the son of Hystaspes, to be their king. Now he, whUe come to Jerusalem HU

he was a private man, had made a vow to God, that if the first year of Darias

he came to be king, he would send all the vessels of as kino of Assyria^ (Elzra

God, that were at Babylon, to the temple at Jemsalem. vi. 22},* and Darins had

Now it so fell out, that about this time Zorobabel, promised him, that if

who had been made governor of the Jews that had ever he should have the

been in captivity, came to Darins fboh Jerusalem ; kingdom, that is to say,

for there nad been an ancient friendship between if ever he took the

him and the king. He was also, with two others, throne of Babylon, he

thought worthy to he guard of the king's body; and ob- would rebuild Jerosa-

tained that honour which he hop^ for" (Joseph, lem" (Joseph., ^nt, xi.,

Ant.f xi., iii., 1). iii., 3, 7).

I appeal to soch of yoar readers as may look at this (always except- ing your correspondent, whose absorbing devotion to his own stranee theory of Bible chronology wonld perphaps render him a partial judge;, does not the language of Josephus in the above extract shew that this Jewish writer supposed that Zerubbabel had been appointed governor of the Jews, and had been residing at Jerusalem in the exercise of that office some time before the son of Hystaspes had been raised to the throne of Persia (to say nothing of that of Babylon and Assyria); that there had been a friendship of long standing between Darius and Zerubbabel, while the latter was yet a private person ; that, in conse- quence of this friendship, Zerubbabel came firom Jerusalem to Darins, 06011^ the time in tthich the latter was made king qfPergia, in the hope of obtaining the royal patronage for the Jews, and the fulfilment of the tow' which Darius had made while yet in private life ; and that on the

* " What time he was set over the realm of the Chaldeans'' (Dan. xi. 1, 2).

' Should the reader be unacquainted with the Book of Ezra, he might natu- rally be led to think, from the manner in which it is here referred to, that the sacred writer supports Mr. Bosan^uet's notion, that Zerubbabel did not come to Jerusalem until Darius became king. If, however, he will read the first six chapters of that book, he will see that while Ezra agrees with Josephus that Zerubbabel had been residing as governor of the Jews at Jerusalem before the first year of the reign of Darius, he gives no countenance whatever to the tales of Zerubbabel's journey to the court of Darius, and of his being made one of that king's body-guard.

' In Ant,, XI., lii., $ 7, the vow is ffiyen at a greater length than in $ 1 : — " Now this vow was to rebuild Jerusalem, and to build therein the temple of Gh)d, as * also to restore the vessels which Ndmehadnezzar hadpiUaged and carried to Babylon.* " But Ezra i. 11 ; Esdras in 1 Esd. ii. 14, 15 ; and Joseph., AnL^ xi., i., i 3, all unite in asserting that all the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar bad carried away into Chaldea, above five thousand in number, were sent back to Jerusalem by Cyrus in the first year of his reign over Babylon. This was in B.c. 536, aocordinff to Sir Isaac Newton. This vow, therefore, of Darius in his private life must have been before b.c. 536, in which year he was, according to Herodotus, only fourteen years of age. Does not this cast suspicion on the asser- tion of Josephus and Es&as ?

1868.] The First Book of Esdras. 145

armal of Zerobbabel at the court from Jerasaleniy of which he was already goTernor, Darius made him (with two others) one of his body- guard?

fiat your oorrespoodent may object that I am speaking of the first year of Darius Hystaspes as king of Persia, cir. b.c. 522, when he was about twenty-eight years old according to Herodotus, and little more than thirty according to Ctesias; while he is speaking of the first year of the same Darius Hystaspes as king of Babylon and Assyria, in b.c. 493, when he was about fifty-seven years old, according to Herodotus, sad sixty-two according to Ctesias.

But does Josephus agree with your correspondent in supposing that Darius Hystaspes did not take the throne of Babylon and Assyria until B.C. 493, about twenty-nine years q/ter he had taken possession of the throne of Persia. Assuredly not. Josephus held that Cyrus died soTeieign of Persia and Babylon — that Cambyses succeeded his father; and the very fact of his marching from Persia to Egypt, shews that Babylon owned his sway; and that after the six years' reign of Cambyses, daring the year of Magian usurpation, Babylon belonged to the Persian empire. Accordingly, when, upon the slaughter of the Magi, cir. B.C. 522, Darius was elected king of Persia, he became also at the same time sovereign of Babylon. So little countenance does Josephus give to your correspondent's idea, ''that this return of Zerubbabel and Jeshua with the body of captives, in the year in which Darius Hystaspes became king of Babylon, was in the year B.C. 493."

Should your correspondent object, that Josephus nowhere calls Cambyses king of Babylon, it must be conceded that the objection can- not be met with a direct denial. The Jewish writer, however, teaches Bs that when Cambyses succeeded to the throne of his deceased father, he became sovereign of Syria, and Phoenicia, of Moab, Ammon, and Samaria. This affords very satisfactory presumptive evidence that he was also sovereign of Babylon, and that this city afterwards submitted to the Magian usurpation under the Pseudo-Smerdis.

To return to Zerubbabel. Now if he had been already residing at Jerosalem as governor of Judea under a Persian king, be/ore Darius received the Persian kingdom, we ask, who appointed the Jewish prince to that office? Did the Magian usurper/ No. Did Cambyses? Certainly not. It must then have been Cyrus from whom Zerubbabel received his appointment. And, therefore, it must have been under Cyrus, that " the children of the province which went up from Babylon, and came, a congregation of 42,360, to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Jeshua,*' as is recorded in Ezra ii. 1, 2, and in verse 64. When was he thus appointed? In the Jinl year of the reign of Cyrus as the suc- cessor of^ Darius the Mede on the throne of Babylon, as we shall immediately learn from Ant.t xi. 1, 3.

Ezra. Josephus.

''Inthefintyearof Cyms, king »' Cyrus, in his first year, sent back

ot Babylon, be made a decree to the vessels of God which king Nebn-

• Yonr correspondent may object that in the extract fipom Josephus, no men- NEW SERIES. — ^VOL. III., NO. V. L

146

Correspondence,

[April,

build this hoase of God. (Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid ; the IteigJU thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth threescore cubits, vi. 3). The yessels also of silver and gold of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple which was at Jerusalem, did Cyrus deliver (by the hand of Mithredath the trea- surer, i. 8^ to one named Shesh- bazzar, wnom he had made go- vernor, and said to him, carry these vessels to the temple in Jerusalem, and let the house of God be builded in his place. Then came the same Sheshoazzar (with them of the captivity that were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem, i. 11) and laid the foundations of the house of God which was in Jersualem (Ezra v. 13, 16). The whole congregation together toeu forty and two thou- §and, three hundred and three- score" (ii. 64). ;*The hands of Zerubbahel Jiave laid the foundciHon of this house, his hands shall also finish it" (Zech. iv. 9).

chadnezzar had pillaged oat of the tem- ple, and carried to Babylon. So he com- mitted these things to Mithridates the trecuurer, to be sent away with an order to give them to Sanabassar, that he might keep them till the temple was built. . . . Cyrus also sent an epistle to the go- vernors that were in Syria, saying, ' I have given leave to as many Jews as dwell m my country as please, to return to their own country, and to rebuild their city, and to build the temple of God at Jerusalem. I have also sent Mithridates, and 2!6robabel the governor of the Jews, that they may lay the foondar- tions of the temple, and build it eixty cubits high, and of the same breadth. Moreover, I have also sent the vessels which king Nebuchadnezzar pillaged out of the temple, and have given them to Mithridates the treasurer, and Zorobabel the governor of the Jews, that they may have them carried to Jerusalem, and may restore them to the temple of God.' Such was the import of this epistle (of Cyrus). Now the number of those that came of the captivity to Jerusalem, were forty- two thousand four hundred and sixty -tujo" (^^nt^*

XI,, I,, 1).

In this extract Josephus applies to Sanabassar/ what Ezra i. 7» S,

tion at all is made of Darius the Mede. This is true. But in the preceding book, we read, " Against Baltasar did Cyrus king of Persia, and Danua Icing ^ Media, march " {Ant., x., xi., § 2). And again, " After a little while the city was taken by C^rus kin^ of Persia. . . . But when Babylon was taken hj Darius, and when he, with his kinsman Cyrus, had put an end to the dominion of the Babylonians, he (Darius) was sixty-two years of age. He was the son of Asty- ages, and had another name among the Greeks, Moreover, he took Daniel the prophet with him into Media, and honoured him very g^reatly, and kept him with him ; for he was one of the three presidents whom he set over his three hundred and sixty provinces, for into so many did Darius part them " {Ant,, x., xi., § 4). Now Josenhus does not say (as Daniel expressly does) that Darius took the Chaldean kingdom; but this is reasonably implied when he sava, " Babylon was taken by Darius, who **took Daniel with him into Media." tot Daniel would naturally attach himself to the king of Babylon. Hence we have reasonable ground for supposing that Josephus may be understood as teaching ns that Cyrus was the successor of Darius the Mede on the throne of Babylon.

/ In the earlier version of Lodge, the name is written Abassar. In the Authorized Vei*sion of the Apocrypha we have Sanabassar with this marginal note:— **Gr., Shashhazar; the first part of the word is corruptly joined to the word going before.'* Diodati follows the Greek, and instead of Sanabassar writea * Sesoassar,* Josephus, however, seems to have been puzzled by the name, for he afterwards writes : — "Cyrus committed the gifts and vessels, and whatsoever*

* This does not very well agree with the notion of the apocryphal Esdras, that Cyrus set apart these vessels, and that some fifteen years afterwards Darius, finding them still in Babylon, sent them by Zerubbahel to Jerusalem. Josephus nowhere countenances this blunder of Esdras.

1863.] The first Book of Esdras. 147

applies to Sbeshbazzar, the prince of Jndah, and what the apocryphal fisdras (1 Esd. ii. 12) also says of his Sesbassar, governor of Judea, ▼is., that ** Cyrus commandea the vessels of God, taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, to be given through Mithridates, the treasurer to Sanabassar, to be kept till the temple was built.'* The Sanabassar of Josephus is, therefore, in this extract evidently to be identified with the Sheshbassar of Ezra and Esdras; for the Jewish historian adds also: — " I (Cyrus) have sent Mithridates and Zerubbabel the governor of the Jews, that they may lay the foundations of the temple; and I have ffiven the sacred vessels to Mithridates the treasurer, and Zorobabel the governor of the Jews, that they may have them carried to Jerusalem." Nay, so deeply rooted in Jewish tradition was the idea of the sacred vessels having been conveyed to Jerusalem by no other governor than Zerubbabel, that, when the apocnrphal Esdras makes them to be carried thither in the second of Darius, he does not scruple to employ a very clumsy fiction, which represents Cyrus as only having set apart these sacred utensils. '' He (Darius) sent away also (by Zerubbabel) all the vessels from Babylon that Cyrus had set apart** (1 Esd. iv. 57). Although this apocryphal writer had previously said, ** So all the vessels (f gold and sUver which were carried away were five thousand, four hundred, threescore and nine. These were brought back by Sesbassar, together with them of the captivity, from Babylon to Jerusalem '^ ^Esd. ii. 14, 15). Thus both Josephus and Esdras teach that the sacrea vessels were conveyed, with a large company of liberated Jews, to Jerusalem, by the governor Zerubbabel. Hence, and from the foot-note, if the

Kebnchadneuar had carried away, to Zerubbabel and Mithridates, the treasurer, and gave order to have them carried to Jerosalem ; . . . and commanded Sana- basaar to go np to Jerusalem, and to take care of the building of the temple, who (Saniumssar), on receiving that epistle from Cyras, came and immediately laid its foundations" {ArU,^ xi., iv., 4). And again, ** Cyrus the king, in the first year of his reign, commanded that the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried to Babylon, should be restored to the people of Jerasalem ; and that the care of these tnings should belong to JSantdMggar, the governor and president of Syria Pkcemday and to his assoouites, that they may not meddle with that place, but may permit the servants of God, the Jews and their rulers, to build the temple. Cyras also ordained that they (Sanabassar and his associates) should assist the Jews in the work, and pay them out of the tribute of the country where they were governors, on account of the sacrifices, . . . and give all other things that the pnests should suggest to them " C^^-j ^i'l iv., 6). Here Sanabassar is a

fen tile, and governor of Syria and Phoenicia. In fjEict, Josephus (or Pseudo- osephus) has here jumbled together the letters of Oyms (Ezra v. 12 — 15)) and of Dariua (vi. 6, 12), and his Sinabassar seems to stand not only for the Sbesh- bazzar, but also for the Shethar-boz-nai, of Ezra. At all events, Josenhus seems to look upon Sbeshbazzar, not as a Hebrew, but as a Persian or Chaldean name. We shall shortly notice the bearing of this on the present discussion.

The apocm)hal Esdras, according to our Authorized Version and that of Diodati, in 1 Esd. v. 6, makes Zernbbabel speak wise sentences before " Darius king of Persia, in the second year of his reign, in the month Nisan." This, as we shall presently see, is wholly inconsistent with the testimony of the prophet Haggai. And we read, in 1 Esd. vi. 18, that ** Cyrus delivered the holy vessels of gold and silver to Zorobabel and Sanabassaras the raler." Even here, Esdras could not get rid of the notion that Zerubbabel was one of those to whom Cyrus detivered uie holy vessels.

l2

148 Correspondence, [Aprils

•

reader will consult it, we learn that both Josephus and Esdras teach that Gyrus, in the first year of his reign, committed the sacred vessels to Zerubbabel to be conveyed to Jerusalem. If they are correct, Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are merely different names of the same individual. The probability of this supposition is increased, if, as Josephus seemed to think, Sheshbazzar was a Chaldean or Persian name.

Mr. Bosanquet says, *' It is improbable that any writer in a con* tinnoos history, afler naming the governor under his title Sheshbazzar (Ezra i. 11), should continue his history a few lines later under another name (Ezra ii. 2) without mentioning their identity." It would be proper to mention the identity, if they for whom the history was written were liable to fall into error through omission of the fact. But the seeming improbability vanishes, if we think that even so late as the time in which Ezra compiled his work, the identity of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel was still as much a matter of notoriety among the Jews as the identity of Belteshazzar and Daniel.

Again, in saying that Zerubbabel not only conveyed the sacred vessels to Jerusalem, having received them from Cyrus through the treasurer Mithridates, but that he was also expressly commanded by Cyrus " to lay the foundations of the temple, and build it sixty cubits high and of the same breadth," Josephus may be understood as identi- fying Zerubbabel with the Sheshbazzar of Ezra (v. 13, 16), who also having received the sacred vessels from Mithredath the treasurer, and a command from Cyrus to go and build the house of God, " came to Jerusalem, and laid the foundation of the house of God at Jerusalem." Josephus would also thus appear to identify Sheshbazzar with the Zerubbabel of whom the prophet Zechariah writes: — "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundations of this house."

And afler all, must not Ezra too be understood as identifying Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar. I will not say that it should be regarded as decisive of the question that such men as Calvin, Biodati, Usher, Bishop Newton, Jahn, and certainly Sir Isaac Newton, have accepted this identity. And how indeed could they do otherwise. It was the return of the liberated captives in the first vear of Cyrus (and not any supposed return in the first or second of Darius), which especially fulfilled the predictions of Isaiah (xliv. 28) and Jeremiah (2 Chron. xzxvi. 22; Ezra i. 1). How should they think it probable that the triumphant fulfilment of these prophecies should be as it were slurred over in such a brief summary as the following: — "All these vessels did Sheshbazzar bring up with them of the captivity that were brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem," while the supposed, not to say imaginary, company which returned several years after, in the first or second year of Darius, is minutely commemorated in the second chapter of the Book of Ezra.

But I do not mean to rest upon this almost decisive argument, as if it were altogether so. My appeal is to the sacred historian himself.

Thoroughly familiar as was Ezra with the scriptures of his fore- fathers, he could not but be aware that, — however architects and lexico*

1863.] The First Book of E$dras. 149

graphers migbt find it to be professionallj necessarji in speaking of the sacred edifice, to distinguish between m and ^m^ — in the historical and prophetical writings of the Hebrews, these terms were not unfrequently regarded as nearly synonymous. With the Chaldee for his native lan- guage, Ezra woold not find, whatever we may do, any very perplexing difficulties in such forms of expression as (nnSt n^-^ m*^ xt) Ezra v. 16, and (fV^top ti^) Ezra vi. 3. Nor, perhaps, is it at all unlikely that Ezra would understand the two following passages, as referring to one and the same transaction: —

^* Then came this Sheshbazzar and laid ** The hands of Zeruhbahel have

the foundation of the bouse of God which laid the foundcUion of this houbb ;

IS in Jerasalem ; and since that time even his hands shall also finish it" (Zech.

mitO now hath it been in building, and iv. 9). yet U is not finished" (Ezra v. 16).

But let us study both the spirit and the letter of Ezra's statements, a method to which it would be well even for learned and erudite critics to pay more attention than they sometimes do, in commenting upon the sacred Scriptures.

Let us then begin by reading carefully Ezra i. 1, 6. We shall find that in the first year of the reign of Cyrus over Babylon, the Lord so *' stirred up the spirit of Chrrus," as to make him willing and anxious to forward the rebuilding of the house of God at Jerusalem. We also read that, in thorough harmony with all this, on occasion of the royal proclamation and invitation, '^Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem."

As we read onward in the history, all is consistent still. Cyrus causes to be brought forth the five thousand four hundred vessels of gold and silver; he orders that the liberated Jews may have cedar trees from Lebanon (iii. 7). And as for the Jews themselves, we find that Sheshbazzar, and with him '* the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and certain of the priests and Levites," having received the sacred vessels, went up with as many of the Jews as were willing to accompany him from Babylon to Jerusalem.

And now let us ask one or tvvo questions. Is it credible that, when the Lord raised up the spirit of Cyrus, of Sheshbazzar the prince (or governor) of Judah, and of the chief of the fathers of Judah and Ben- jamin, to rebuild the house of God at Jerusalem, that this divine in- fluence should have been withheld from Jeshua the high priest, the lineal descendant of Aaron? Is it not even more incredible that when Sheshbazzar the governor set out on his way to Jerusalem, with the five thousand four hundred sacred vessels of gold and silver, expressly to rebuild the house of God, accompanied by Hebrews of all classes, Jeshua the high priest, so deeply interested in all this, should decline to go up with Sheshbazzar in the first year of Cyrus, and prefer to remain with those of his unpatriotic countrymen who could not prevail upon themselves to abandon their comfortable Chaldean homes?

The same kind of reasoning, mutatis mutandis, will apply to Zeruh-

150

Correspondence,

[April,

babel. And if we look at Matt. i. 12 we shall be still more confirmed in our opinion^ that Zerubbabel led the captivitj from Babylon in the first year of Cyrus; and the passages recently quoted from Ezra (v. 1 6) and Zechariah (iv. 9) will constrain us to identify Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel.

Yet in defiance of all this, Mr. Bosanquet says, " I will now assume for the moment " (and even this short time is too long for so wild an assumption) " the correctness of my own mode of reckoning the chro- nology." And a part of this startling assumption is that Sheshbazzar, as the first governor, was the predecessor of Zerubbabel the second governor, and that the return of Zerubbabel and Jeshua with the body of captives was in the year B.C. 493, shortly after Darius Hystaspes had been made king of Babylon. It is to be hoped that the Boyal Asiatic Society will not suffer their Journal to be again employed in the support of this untenable perversion of sacre4 and secular history.

Your correspondent professes the most profound admiration, or rather veneration, for the historical and chronological researches of Sir Isaac Newton. And what does this illustrious mathematician and philosopher say of the time of Zerubbabel' s return? I appeal to the reader: if this great man asserts that this was in the first of Cyrus, he must also be understood as asserting the identity of Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel.

But Ibaao Nbwto>n. *^ Comparing, therefore, the Books of Ezra ana Nehemiah together, the history of the Jews is, that they returned from captivity under Zebubbabel in the fibst OF Ctbcs, dwelt in their cities until the seventh month, and then comii^ to Jerusalem, they firti huUt the altar " (Ezra iii. 2), *' and in the first day of the seventh began to ofier the daily burnt-offerings, and read in the book of the law, and they kept a solemn feast, and sealed the cove- nant.'^

Mb. BOBINQUET.

** The first chapter of Ezra refers to the governorship of Sheehbazzar^ the second chapter to the governor- ehip of Zervboabd. . . . Zerubbabel did not come to Jerusalem nntU the first year of Darius Hystaspes as king of Assyria and Babylon. . . . 8o that this return of Zerubbabel and Jeshua with the body of captives was in the year b.o. 493. . . . The third chapter of Ezra (the buildin e of the altar, etc.) refers noi to the time of Cyrus, but to ^ time of Ihriua.'

I do not, however, think that Newton is justified in inferring so confidently from the fact that there was a sealing under Nehemiah the Tirshatha, not earlier than the twentieth of ^rtaxences Longimanus B.C. 445, that there had been also a national sealing under Zerubbabel not earlier than the first or second of Cyrus b.c. 536-5.

It would not be worth while to pursue this subject any farther, merely to confute your correspondent s untenable improbabilities and inconsistencies. But he has endeavoured to leave an impression upon the mind of his readers that Newton, in heart, leaned strongly to his theory. It may be, therefore, well to spend a little more time and ink to shew that Newton would not have been justified in doing so.

Mr. Bosanquet lays great stress upon what he alleges to be the dis- tinction between the temple and the house of God. We have already

' J, S, L,, October, pp. 174, 175.

1863.] The First Book of Esdras. 151

observed that in Ezra y. 16, and Zech. iy. 9, the same word [rr^ house is employed. Let as look at another passage from Ezra, and compare it with one from your correspondent.

Ezra. Mr. Bobanquet.

"^ Now in the second year of their coming nnto the We should '* be

boose of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began aware of the distinc-

Zerabfaabel and Jeshua, and appointed Leyites to set for- tion between temple

ward the work of the house op the Loan (▼. 10). . . . and sanctuary, and

j^ndwhen the builders laid the foundation of the TEifpLs the AotMeof the Loiid,

of the Lord^ they set the priests with their apparel with which is wellexempli-

trumpets ; they sang together by course in praising and fied in the passage ;

giving thanks unto the Lord (y. 11). . . And all the * And brought out fdi

people shouted when they praised the Lord because the nndeanness that

the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid they found in the tom-

(y. 12). But many of the priests that had seen the pie of the Lord, into

nrst house when the foundation of this house was laid the court of the house

before their eyes, wept with a loud voice, and many of the Lord" (2 Chron.

shouted for joy " (Ezra iii. 8, 12). zxiz. 16).*

I have thought it fair to your correspondent to qaote his Hebrew critieism. Bnt the question before us does not call for any enquiry how far his distinction may, or may not, be well exemplified in 2 Chron. xxix. 16; though, perhaps, it may be better exemplified there than in the last citation from Ezra.

I venture, however, to assume that (as Newton undoubtedly believed) it may be safely inferred from this portion of Ezra's narrative that all which is there described, as the laying the foundation of the temple of the Lord, — the laying of the foundation of the house of the Lord, and the laying of the foundation of this house, was performed early in the reiffn of ^frus over Babylon, in the second year of the return of the liberated captives from Chaldea to Judea, — early in that second year, and under the direction of Zerubbabel as governor, and Jeshua as high priest. If we admit, with Newton, the correctness of this view, it will follow that what is recorded in Ezra iv. 1 — 3 belongs to the same period.

Even Mr. Bosanquet seems to concede that Ezra apparently favours this view. For he writes: — "The fourth chapter of Ezra, from the first to the sixth verse, refers also to the days when the temple was rebuilt. But it has been commonly supposed to refer to the time of Gyros, because the enemies of the Jews are said to have 'hired counsellors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia; even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.* This ts the only passage which apparently favours the view of your correspondent" (which is also the view of Newton). ''But Josephus considers the words as referring to what had been done ^formerly in the days of Cyrus' (Jos., jint., xi., iv., 4), and this is no doubt the proper mode of turning the passage" («/. S, £., Oct., p. 175).

The first six verses of the fourth chapter have certainly been com- monly supposed to refer to the time of Cyrus. Usher, Newton, Jahn, and others, have done so. And the apocryphal Esdras, whd has strangely confounded together the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, seems

* J. S. //., October, p. 171.

152

Correspondence,

[April,

also to have held a similar opinion. For he writes: — ** So Zorobabel and Jesus (Jeshua)« and the chiefs of the families of Israel, said to the enemies of Judah and Benjamin, we ourselves alone will build unto the Lord of Israel, according as Cyrus, the king of the Persians, hath com- manded us. But the heathen of the land lying heavy upon the in- habitants of Judea, by their secret plots and popular persuasions and commotions,^ hindered the building all the time that king Cyrus lived .- so they were hindered from building for the space of two years, until the reign of Darius.'* Your correspondent, if he prefers 'the authority of Esdras to that of Herodotus, Gtesias, and Justin, may gather from this quotation, that Darius was the immediate successor to the throne of Persia when Cyrus ceased to live. He will hardly, how- ever, be able to prove from this passage a proposition of which he thus speaks: — ''I have affirmed, and still most confidently maintain, that Cyrus, grandson of Astyages, survived Cambysee, and reigned concur^ rently with Darius /or some years'' (J. S, L., Oct., p. 169).

As for Josephus, I would appeal from the fourth chapter of the eleventh book to the first chapter of that book, connecting in a con- tinuous history the last sentence of the first, with the commencement of the second chapter.

Ezra. " Now these are the children of the proyince that went up out of the captivity . . . which came with Zerubbabel (ii. 1, 2). The whole congpregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore (ii. 64). Now in the second year of their oomine the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord (iii. 10). Now when the adyersaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel, they came to Zerubbabel. . . . But Zerub- babel and Jeshua, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, said to them, Ye have nothing to do with us. We ourselves wul build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus

Josephus. '^ Such was the import of this epistle (of Cyras, concerning Mithridates and Zerub- babel). Now the number of them that came (with Zerubbabel) outof captivity to Jerusalem were forty-hoo thatiiand fowr hundred and sixty-two. When the founda- tions of the temple were laying, and when the Jews were very zealous about building it, the neighbouring nations, and especially the Cutheans, whom Sbalmaneser, king of Assyria, had planted in Samaria, be- sought the governor and those that had the care of such affairs, that they would interrupt the Jews, both in the rebuilding of their city, and in the building of their temple. Now as these men were cor^ rupted by them with money, they sold the Cutheans their interest for rendering this building a slow and careless work ; for Cynu, w7io was busy about ether tcorf,

' Thus both Esdras and Josephus held that the letter of Artaxerxes (Exra iv. 17, 22) was written before Darius became king. Josephus expressly iden- tifies this Artaxerxes with Cambyses, while Esdras seems to identify him with the Magian, the immediate predecessor of Darius. Your correspondent has only to consult 1 Esdras ii. 30, and y. 73, to see that this apocryphal writer believed (apparently according to the generally received Jewish tradition) that the reign of the Artaxerxes of Ezra (iv. 7) preceded that of Darius. Josephus expressly says that after the letter of Cambyses (Artaxerxes), Ezra iv. 17, 22, " the works were hindered from going on till the se&md year of the reign of Darias, for ntne years more; for Cambyses reiped six years (and the Ma^n one year") Ant^ xi., ii., i 2, and iii. $1. In differing from Josephus and Esdras, Newton seems to reject the commonly received Jewish tradition.

1863.]

The first Book of Esdras.

163

tkeloM cf Penult bath commanded US. Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Jadah, and trouhled them in building. And hired oounBeUoni against them, to fnistrate their pnr- pose, all the days of Cvms king of Persia, eTen until tne reign of Darius king of Persia " (Ezra iv. 1,6).

knew nothing of all this ; and It so hap- pened that when he had led his army against the MassagetaOf he ended his life. But when Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, had taken the kingdom, the governors in Syria and Phoeniciaf and in the countries 01 Amroon and Moab, and Samaria, wrote an epistle to Cambyses, whose contents were as follows: *■ To our Lord Cambyses, etc.'" (^n<., xi., ii., %\).

It is plain that what Josephus says of the Catheans of Samaria {^^the people of the land** as Ezra calls them), that they besought the goTernors and those that had the care of such affairs, that they would interrupt the Jews in the building of the temple ; who (the goremors and their associates) being corrupted by the money of the Cutheans, sold them their interest, etc.; it is plain, I saj, that what is here said by Josephus corresponds to the words of Ezra, " the people of the land (the Cutheaos) hired counsellors against them ( the Jews) all the days of Cyrus king of Persia." Josephus thus makes it manifest that he believed that all which Ezra states in the first five verses of bis fourth chapter (omitting the clause, ** until the reign of Darius ") took place during; the reign of Cyrus^ and before the accession of Cambyses^ whatever this historian may seem to say to the contrary elsewhere.

Mr. Bosanquet will perhaps ask, Does not Josephus assert (Ant., iv. 1) that whicn is directly opposed to what he had asserted in the first chapter of the eleventh book? Does he not teach that, after the triumphant return of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, in the first year of Darius, at the head of -^ four millions of Hebrews (Esdras gives the more modest number of forty thousand), in the seventh month after their departure from Babylon, Zerubbabel built the*^ altar on the same place it had been formerly built, that thej might offer the appointed sacrifices upon

■ If Mr. Bosanc^uet is really correct in asserting that Ezra iv. 1, 5 belongs to the rdflni of Danns Hystaspes, how came Zerubbabel and Jeshua not once to mention the name of this royal patron ? For, according to your correspondent, Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and their company, came to Jerusalem in the first or second year of Darius, cir. b.c. 493, and under his royal patronage and protec- tion. The very fact that the name of Darius is not once tdluded to in Ezra iv. 1, 4, should of itself have decided your correspondent to agree with Newton in assigning this portion of Ezra's narrative to the reign of Cyrus. We may perhaps have a future opportunity of saying something further on this subject.

J The serious difference between Josephus and Esdras, — the one reckoning the Jews who returned as four millions, the other as only forty thousand — may he easily reconciled on the supposition of very great carelessness on the part of tran- 8cril>eTfl. Another discrepancy may have arisen from a similar cause. Josephus calls Apame, ** the daughter of Rabsases jTAanonw," hut Esdras says that her fiither was *^the admirable Bartacus." This difference may be reconciled, at least in part, by supposing Themasius to be a transcriber's error for the adjectiye Bovftariosy "wonderral."

* Cyms promised the returning Jews ** that he would write to the governors in the neignbourhood of Judea to contribute to them gold and silver for the boilding of the temple, and besides that, beasts for their sacrifices, . . . And when they were come thither . . . they performed their vows to God, and ofiered the sacrifices that had been accustomed of old time {Ant,y xi., i., $ 2, 3).

154 Correspondence. [April,

it to God, according to the laws of Moses. Mr. Bosanquet may again ask, Does not this evidently refer to Ezra iii. 1, 2? Yes, evidently. Should, however, your correspondent proceed triumphantly to ask once more. And does not this prove then that the second chapter of Ezra, and the earlier verses of the third, belong to the second year of Dariua Hystaspes? Certainly not. It only proves that Josephus has flatly con- tradicted himself, and, therefore, that he cannot reasonably be offended by your correspondent's having flatly contradicted him in asserting, in italics, that Zerubbabel did not come to Jerusalem, until Darius Hystaspes became king of Babylon.

When a writer directly contradicts himself, we must judge as well as we may be able, which statement to accept and which to reject* Now, according to the law of Moses, the appointed sacrifices could only be legally ofl^ered on the altar of burnt-offering. The law was very strict on this point. We might, therefore, reasonably and scripturally suppose that the Jews who returned, according to Josephus, with Zerubbabel to the number of forty-two thousand, built an altar of burnt- offering very soon after their arrival in Judea. Josephus, in the first chapter of his eleventh book, must be understood as taking this reason- able and scriptural view; and thus the second and third chapters of Ezra are to be referred to a very early period of the reign of Cyrus over Babylon.

On the other hand, they who agree with your correspondent, will have to suppose that, during the whole of the reign of Cyrus, and during the seven years which Josephus assigns to the combined reigns of Cambyses and the Magians, and during the first year of Darius, the Jews were satisfied to be without an altar of burnt-offering, and conse- quently that they offered no sacrifices to God, according to the law of Moses, during the whole period which elapsed between the close of the first year of Cyrus, and the second year of Darius. Is not the mere statement of this view enough to ensure its rejection?

On our view, it will follow that what is recorded in Ezra iv. 1 , 3, belongs to the latter half of the second year of Cyrus, or to the very early part of his third year. Hence the tidings of the commencement of the malignant interruption of the work of the temple would reach Daniel in the third of Cyrus. The unexpected news would be a source of deep disappointment and grief to the aged prophet. This may assist us in more clearly understanding the following event in the his- tory of Daniel: — " In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel. ... In those days, I, Daniel, was mourn- ing three full weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled" (Dan. x. 1, 3). We may suppose that this mourning of Daniel was caused by his having heard of the opposition to the rebuilding of the temple recorded in Ezra iv. 1 — 4.

[To be continued.]

1863.] Revelation and Science. 155

BEVELATION AND SCIENCE.

(Cootinaed from Vol. II., p. 188.)

Permit me to contione my reply to the reyiewer of Revelation and Science with reference to the Dame of the Pharaoh in whose reign the Exode took place, a subject of increasing interest from the fact that the recently discovered key to decipher the hieroglyphic inscriptions and the hieratic papyri, has confirmed in a variety of ways the truth of the Mosaic record.

Chronology must necessarily have much to do in investigating such a matter, and I consoled myself with the thought that at all events we had a fair starting point, viz., the date of Solomon's temple, b.c. 1014, on which the advocates of so many different systems of chronology, such as Usher, Bishop Lloyd, the author of the Biblical Dates, Clinton, Bunsen, Essays and Reviews, etc., etc., are in harmony ; when Mr. Bosanquet's letter, which appeared in the last number of The Journal of Sacred Literature, dispelled my hopes, and shewed me the necessity of endeavouring to prove the correctness of the received chronology of that era as well as of that which is more ancient. I trust that I do not misrepresent Mr.' Bosanquet when I point out that his warrant for rejecting the received chronology of the first millenary b.c, rests upon his assumption of the identity of " Darius the Mede, the son of Aha- Buerus,'*^ with Darius the Persian, the son of Hystaspes. An hypo- thesis which he has defended with great ability in The Journal of Sacred Literature; but which I frankly own appears to me still to be as un- tenable as an attempt to prove the identity of the first and third Georges of England. If Mr. Bosanquet were to succeed in curtailing the received chronology as he proposes, I apprehend it would be necessary not only to set aside the dates of the great eras of the eighth century B.C., viz., those of the Olympiads of the building of Rome and of Nabonassar, but also to rewrite the histories of Herodotus, Xenopbon, and Diodorus, the canon of Ptolemy, the fragments of Manetho, and the Parian marble, all of which at present unite to confirm what the world has for so many ages agreed to receive as truth.

Further, I gather from a letter of Mr. Bosanquet, which appeared in the Athenaum, July 26, 1862, that he proposes to lower the chronology of this period by about twenty-four years, as he dates the building of the temple b.c. 990; the birth of Christ b.c. 3 ; and contends that there were only '*four hundred and ninety years or seventy weeks of years from the time of the anointed prince (Dan. ix. 25) to the first year of

* There is now in the British Maseam a cylinder containing the name of some king of *' the Persian epoch/' as Mr. Layard says, though he adds his inability ** to decipher the names of this king and his father sati^actorily ** {Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 606-7). I venture to suggest that the words, which are in the Phoenician cha- racters, may be read according to the alphabet of Gesenius, as ^mrriM ns n'nttyri Dm ** the seal or sealed decree of Darius, the son of Artrti or Ahasnerus." If this he a correct reading, we have lapidary proof of the existence of ** Darius the Mede " as diitiDct from Darius Hystaspes.

156 Correspondence. [April,

Darius the son of Ahasueni8." To this I would reply that the birth of Christ cannot be dated b.c. 3, from the simple fact of Herod the Great having died B.C., of which we have sufficient proof. Moreover, as the famous prophecy of Daniel, to which he refers, points distinctly to the crucifixion and not to the Hrth of Christ, with an interval of sixty-nine weeks or four hundred and eighty-three years from the time of giving the commission to rebuild the widl of Jerusalem, until the fulfilment of the

Srophecy, and not of four hundred and ninety years, it will be seen that Ir. Bosanquet's theory receives little aid from the Scripture which he has invoked. The commission was given to Nehemiah by king Artaxerxes in the twentieth year of his reign, as Neh. ii. verv clearly shews, which must be dated B.C. 455, and from *'the month of Nisan** of that year to the Passover of a.d. 29, when the crudfixion took place, is the required number of four hundred and eighty-three years. It is satisfactory to know that the idea entertained by Archbishop Usher of dating the commencement of Artaxerxes' reign nine years earlier than the canon of Ptolemy allows, grounded upon what Thucydides says of Themistocles' flight to Persia, has been confirmed by hieroglyphic inscriptions in Egypt, shewing that Artaxerxes was associated with his father in the twelfth year of Xerxes' reign, so that there ought to be no longer any doubt respecting that famous prophecy of Daniel, so far at least as regards the crucifixion.

Mr. Bosanquet seeks to confirm his chronology by an appeal to Lepsius, who, he says, in his Konigabuch der Jlten .Mgypter^ places the first year of Solomon b.c. 992, while a little further on he condemns the same Lepsius for proposing to '' cut down iweniy year9 from the reign of Manasseh," adding " no man is more fully competent than Dr. Hincks to iketo the fallacy of this position'* (/. S, L., pp. 167, 169), though this, or something similar, must be adopted if Mr. Bosanquet's chronology be admitted. I have now before me Lepsius' Letters from Egypt, to which are appended fables qf Egyptian Dynasties^ professedly compiled on the authority of Bunsen's jSgyptens Stelle and Lepsius' Die Chronologie der JEgypter, an earlier work than the other one referred to above. In these tables the capture of Jerusalem by Pharaoh Shishak is placed b.c. 970, and as this occurred forty-one years subsequent to the building of the temple, we mav date this latter event b.c. 1011 upon the authority of Lepsius himself. He appears, however, to have revised his earlier opinions, which he had an undoubted right to do^ but however much he may admire the great learning, admirable skill, and patient research of this distinguished German scholar, it is impos- sible to put much faith in him as a chronologer when any Biblical sub- ject is in dispute; for, while on the one hand, he curtails Scripture io the most arbitrary manner when his purpose requires it, as e.g., he writes in opposition to Moses that " only about ninety years intervened from the entrance of Jacob to the exodus of Moses, and about as much from the entrance of Abraham into Canaan to Jacob's exodus ;"^ so, on the other hand, Bunsen, an equally distinguished German of the same school,

^ Egypfs Place in Univenal History, vol. iv., pp. 492^3.

1863.3 Revelatufn and Science. 157

endeavonrs to make out that the children of Israel were more than 14S0 ftan in EgypL'

To adduce the following authorities^ who have worked out certain importaot epochs based upon different systems of chronology, but which all harmonize with the received chronology in opposition to the theory which Mr. Bosanquet supports. Accepting the date of Alexander's conquest of Egypt B.C. 332, on which all agree as a stand point, we gather the following dates concerning the time in dispute.

B.C.

455. Thccommencement of Daniel's pro- T—,

phecy of the acyenty weeks in the! Thucydides, Hht,, i., 137, and certain

twentieth year of the reign of Ar-i Weroglyphic monumenU in Upsius' Z)«i*-

taxerxes. \jnater, m., 283.

493. Battle of Marathon when Darius /Parian marble, and Herodotus, i., 209, and

Uystaspes was sixty years of age. \ vii., 1, 4.

r Dr. Brngsch, Hut. d*Egypte, p. 264. Dr. S27. Conquest of Egypt hy Cambysea. i Hincks on the Egyptian Stele, TVam.

I R. T, A,y vol. xix., p. 52. 538. Babylon taken by Cyrus. " Da- f Clinton, FatL HeUen., toL ii., p. 10, who

rios the Mede, the son of Aha- < observes " both Herodotus and Xenophon

suerus," sixtv-two years of age. [ are contUtent with this date " (Dan. t. 31). 587. Fall of Jerusalem. Flight of the fCUnton, F. H,, i., 328. Brugsch, //i«.

Jews to Egypt in the reign of Pha-< d^ Egypt t p. 292. Africanus from Ma«

raoh-hophjrat or Onaphris. [ netho/

€10. Deatbof Josiah. Capture of Jem- f_ „. , i? *. o^ i .a

salem by Pharaoh Necho, who car- J J'- Hmcks on Egyptian Stele, p. 52.

ried king Jehoahaz to Egypt. \ Bmgsch, as above ; Africanus, as aboye.

721 The capture of Samaria, and depor- f Sir H. Rawlinson on the Assyrian Canon./

tation of the ten tribes of Israel in^ VArt de Verifier lee Datee avant P0re

the first year of king Largon. 976 Capture of Jerusalem by Pharaoh

Shisbak in the fifth year of king*

Behoboam.

1014. The building of the temple in the fisorth year of king Solomon.

. Chr^iienne. Clinton, F, H,, i., 320. Brugsch, as above.

Ussher, Clinton, Bunsen, Brugsch, Raw- linson, Hincks, etc, etc.

I venture now with some confidence to think that the received date of the building of Solomon's temple may be safely depended upon, and that Mr. Bosanquet has been somewhat hasty in bis " prediction that from henceforth we shall hear little more of the old conventional dates of Bible chronology'' (/. S. L,, October, p. 167), especially since his system depends upon the identity of '* Darius the Mede" with Darius Hystaspes, an hypothesis which the writer of the article on " Darius," in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, has justly declared to

' Lepsius' Lettere, p. 475. Scripture says, four hundred and thirty years. Com- pare Exod. xii. 40 with Gal. ilL 16, 17.

/ Mr. Bosanquet here endeavours in his letter to the Athenaum to decry the celebrated canon of Ptolemy, which in this instance conclusively fixes the |date of Sargon's reign by the lunar eclipses in the first and second years of Merodach-baladan, and which have been verified by modem astronomers. Sir H. Rawlinson and Dr. Hincks, though differing in certain details, have been engaged in shewing bow the dironology deduced firom the Assyrian canon harmonizes with Scripture, the Ptolemaic canon and the certain tests of modem astronomical science. All these are fatal to Mr. Boaanquet's theory.

158 Correspondence. [April,

*' rest on no plaasible evidence, and may be dismissed at once " (Len, Lengerke, Dan,, 21 9 j^.

How many years interrened between the Exodus at the building of the temple? This is the next important question to be considered previous to pronouncing on the Pharaoh who withstood Moses. On this point there are two well-defined and distinctly opposed systems. The advocates of the longer chronology, in round terms, allow between five and six hundred years for that interval; the others only about half that period. Amongst the latter are to be found the names of very eminent Egyptologers, such as Bunsen, Lepsins, Osburn, the author of the Monumental History of Egypt, the Rev. J. D. Heath, and last, but not least, a lady who very ably advocated this system in the /. S. L. some years ago. Miss F. Corbeaux. Those who accept the longer chronology consider that the Pharaoh of the Exode is to be fouud among the kings of the eighteenth dynasty; the other is one of the later kings towards the close of the nineteenth dynasty.

What saith the Scripture on the subject? We read that Solomon began to build the temple ** in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings vi. I). Now if this were Scripture, there would be far greater authority than Boma locuta for deciding on the interval between the Exode and the Temple. But we have conclusive evidence that the passage is an interpolation of the third or fourth century of the Chris- tian era. For, 1st, it does not agree with the summation of years given in either the Old or New Testament, and one Scripture cannot contradict another. 2nd. None of the Jewish writers, such as Deme- trius or Josephus, nor of the Christian writers, such as Theophilns of Antioch, or Clement of Alexandria, could have known such a passage, for their chronology of that period is essentially dififereut. 3rd. Origen, probably the best authority on the true text which the Church has ever known, quotes 1 Kings vi. 1, as follows, "They prepared stones and timbers three years; and in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel'' (Com. in Joh.). Had the passage existed in the time of Origen it is impossible that he could have quoted the verse with the omission of the most important clause. If I am not mistaken, Eusebius is the earliest authority who gives the passage in dispute; we may, therefore, conclude that between the time of Origen and Eusebius it had some how or other crept into the text.

Have we any other authority for definitely deciding on the interval which Scripture has omitted to do? I think we have. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in the second century, says, " There is an account among the Tyrian archives about the building of the temple in Jndea, which king Solomon built five hundred and sixty-six years afler the Jews went out of Egypt" {Theoph, ad Autolyc, iii., § 28). And that Theophilus means this as the chronology of the Tyrian archives and not of his own, is very evident from the fact that he gives five hundred and forty-two years years as his reekoning for that interval {Ibid., § 28). We know from Scripture the close connexion which existed between the kingdoms of Israel and Tyre at the time of the building of the temple.

1863.]

Revelation and Science.

159

which may account for, the statement appearing in the Tynan archives respecting the exact duration of the interral, so well known as it must have been to Solomon at that period of Jewish history. Josephus says ** that there are public writings among the Tyrians, kept with great eractness^ in which it was recorded that the temple was bnilt by king Solomon at Jerusalem" (Contr, Jp.^ i., § 17); but he omits to quote the number of years which had elapsed from the time of the Exode, as Theophilns, with greater candour, has done; which can only be ac- connted for by supposing that Josephus felt conscious it would militate against his own calculation as given in the JrUiguities, where he observes, ** Solomon began to build the temple five hundred and ninety- two years after the Exodus out of Egypt" (Antiq,^ viii. Ill, § 1).

Let us now consider how Scripture agrees with the Tyrian archives which give five hundred and sixty-six years as the duration of time from the Exode to the temple. As regards the Old Testament a chasm occurs after the death of Moses. We are not informed what was the duration of the government of Joshua, and the elders, and of the anarchy which followed. Neither in the New Testament have we the exact duration stated which we require, for St. Paul uses the term, " about four hundred and fifty years," which necessarily implies a certain latitude in calculating therefrom. The harmony, however, which must exist between them and the Tyrian archives, if the latter be true, may be thus stated: —

OLD TESTAMENT. TRS. TR8. NEW TESTAMENT.

1. The Israelites in the wilderness 40 Exodus xvi. 35. 40 Acts xviii. 18.

2. Division of the land 1 Joshua xi« 23. 1

5. Itale of the Judges 331 ..\^^^ ("Jud,^ ««oi.< ^ Act. xvni. 20.

4. The SIX servitudes 111 ..J 450 years.")

5. Saul's reign 40 40 Acts xviii. 21.

6. David's reign 40 1 Kings ii. 11. 40

7. The fourth year of Solomon. . 3 1 Kings vi. 1. 3

566 566

Assuming, therefore, that the interval from the Exode to the temple was exactly five hundred and sixty-six years, the date of the £xode may be accurately computed as e.g. 1580, for the building of the temple b.c. 1014 + 566=1580. The Pharaoh of the Exode then must necessarily be sought amongst the kings of the eighteenth dynasty, the commencement of which is dated by Brugsch {HUt. tPEgypty p. 290), as b. c. 1706. Moreover, this date affords a very happy synchronism between the chronology of Scripture and of Manetho, whom Bunsen lauds so much.

There can be no doubt in the mind of those who accept the longer chronology for this period, that Pharaoh Aahmes, or Amosis as he was called by the Greeks, the conqueror of the Hyksos, and the renewed chief of the eighteenth dynasty (some of whose relics, by the way, from his mother's tomb were exhibited by M. Mariette at the International Exhibition of last year) was he whose accession is so succinctly de- scribed in Scripture, '' Now there arose up a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph" (Exod. i. 8). This is represented as having

1 60 Correipondence. [A pril,

occurred immediately after the death of '* Joseph aud all his brethren and all that generation." According to Scripture Joseph's death at one hundred and ten years of age occurred one hundred and forty-four years before the Exode, or b.c. 1724. Levi's death at one hundred and thirtv-seven years of age may be similarly computed at one hun- dred and twentT-seTcn years before the Exode, or b.c. 1707. As Levi appears to nave been the Uut of Jacob's sons, whose age at death is specified in Scripture, we may fairly infer that he was the last of that generation. Now, according to Bruesch, whose computation is a com- bination of Manetho and the hiero^^hio-monuments, the eighteenth dynasty (before which Niebuhr considers Egyptian history somewhat mythical) commenced b.c. 1706, or the year succeeding the death of Levi. I have before quoted Brugsch, in proof that Pharaoh Shishak's reign synchronised with the fifth year of king Rehoboam b.c. 976 ; and it is with no slight satisfaction that I find the same writer, whose chro- nology is based upon Manetho and the monuments, again, in accordance with that of Scripture, after an interval of about seven hundred years.

Further, the recent discovery from a papyrus now in the Biblio- theque at Paris, and which has been translated by M. Prisse d'Avennes,' M. Chalos, Mr. Goodwin, and Mr. Heath, who are all in unison upon this important point, leads us to infer that in the reign of the king who preceded Amosis, and who was reigning at Memphis when Joseph died, the recognised definition of venerable old age was at that period de- scribed as one hundred and ten years. The subiect is too long to bo treated fully here; but I may mention that the enormous benefits which Joseph conferred upon Egypt during his life, and the great honour which was paid him by the Egyptians at his death, would naturally lead us to suppose that his age, and not that of his unknown brother Levi, though his was greater still, would become ti proverb amongst the Egyptians, as we have satisfactory proof it subsequently did.* Moreover, this is a satisfactory reply to one of Bunsen's many scepticisms, as he only allows Joseph seventy-eight years, and argues against the possibility of his having attained the age of one hundred and ten, because his great-great-grandchildren are not mentioned by Moses as he thinks they ought to have been I ^

There are other proofs, which I have considered in RevekUion and Science, confirmatory of the correctness of the chronology of this period, which requires that the Pharaoh of the Exode should be sought for, as I believe in the seventh king of the eighteenth dynasty; but to this the advocates of the shorter chronology raise several objections which demand a brief notice.

1st. My reviewer states the population of Egypt never exceeded 8,000,000, and if 2,000,000 quitted Egypt at the time of the Exode, the injury done to Egypt was such that the successors of the Pharaoh, whom, I suppose, was drowned in the Red Sea, would never have been

f Facnmile d*un Papyrus Egypiien, par E. Prisse d'Avennes, pi. xix., lines 7, 8. * Parthenon, No. XI. — '* Longevity amongst the ancient Egyptians, and a Record of the Patriarchal age/' by the Rev. D.J. Heath. < Egypt's Place, iii. 342.

1863.] Revelation and Science. 161

able to baSd the raonuments they did, and he pronounces it to be a " waste of time *' to' reply to such a convincing argument as this. I believe the reviewer has stated the population of Egypt much too low, as the description which Herodotus gives of the 20,000 towns, and the testimony which .Aristotle bears to the extraordinary fecundity of the Egyptian women, would imply a much larger population than he is dis- posed to allow. France, after two periods in her history, viz. the revo- cation of the edict of Nantes, and again after the horrors of the reign of terror, and the loss of life consequent thereon, affords a sufficient reply to the strange argument of the reviewer. Moreover, Lepsius, one of the most distinguished advocates of the shorter chronology, considers Rameases III. to have led great armies into Asia, and to have been almost as great a conqueror as his more noted ancestor, Ramesses Sesostris, nearly fifty years (^ter what he considers to have been the time of the Exode.

2nd. It is also argued that no conquests could have taken place in Asia after the Israelites were settled in Canaan without some mention of it in Scripture ; but this argument is of little weight, if we re- member that Scripture does not imply the existence of any powerful Jewish kingdom until the time of Saul, or nearly five hundred years after the true date of the Exode. So that the Asiatic conquests, whether of Amenophis III. of the eighteenth dynasty, or of Sethos I. and of Harnesses II. of the nineteenth dynasty, or of Ramesses III. of the twentieth dynasty, might all have taken place after the Israelites had settled in Canaan, without the necessity of such conquests being mentioned in Scripture. Farther, the well-known Stelse of Ramesses II., near Beyroot in Syria, described by Herodotus, and of which there is a fragment of the inscription containing the king's name still visible, prove the effeminacy of the Canaanites at that time ; and I cannot but think that the Scripture record of the hosts of '* the king of Canaan '* having been subdued " by the hand of a woman," as it is emphatically recorded in the book of Judges, affords another instance of synchronism between the histories of Israel and Egypt, which the opponents of Scripture chronology would do well to consider. It is scarcely ne- cessary to add that Deborah was judging Israel at the same time that Ramesses II. was king of Egypt.

3rd. It is argued, that as the children of Israel were compelled to '* build for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses " (Exod. i. 1 1), therefore they must have been in Egypt at the time when Ramasses I., the head of the nineteenth dynasty, was reigning. But those who so argue) supposing we admit the necessity of deriving the name of a town from some person, instead of vice versa, as was the custom in England during the Norman rule) forget two things — 1st, that the monuments shew that a son of Amosis, the head of the eighteenth dynasty, and the Pharaoh who compelled the Israelites to build these treasure cities, had a son who bore the name of Ramasses, as the Greeks would have written it, the name of Ra-meS'^ in hieroglyphics signifying ** Son of the

^ Leprios' Komgslmeh der Alien jEgyptes Scutcheon, 320. M. Mariette considen NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. V. M

162

Correspondefice.

[April,

San," and derived probably from Heliopolis, which Sir Gardiner Wilkin- son* shews was written £i-n-ra, " the abode of the Sun ; " and 2nd« that nearly a hundred years before that time the name of Ramesses was known in £gypt> for it is expressly declared that the land which Pharaoh gave to Jacob and his sons at the time of their immigration was "the land of Ramesses" (Gen. zlvii. 11). So that^ according to Bunsen, who dates that immigration with manrellous exactness as 1427} years before the time of the Exode,' and at the same time only allows three hundred years for the interval between the Exode and the temple, the name Ramesses was known in Egypt nearly three thousand years before the Christian era I

Let me now adduce the opinions of three of the most distinguished advocates of the shorter chronology with reference to the time of the Israelites in Egypt, and the respective Pharaohs with whom they had dealings, in order to shew that if we could give up the Scripture chro- nology for the interval between the Exode and the temple, we should be more at sea than ever with reference to the point which we are con- sidering, viz., the true Pharaoh of the Exode. Bunsen and Lepsius may be considered as belonging to the same school; and Osbum, who has very fully investigated the matter in his Monumental History of Egypt^ though differing from them on many points, is in harmony with them, as well as with my reviewer, in contending very strongly in favour of the shorter period between the time of the Exode and the building of the temple.

Date of			The	The	From
Abraham	The name	The	Pharaoh who	Pharaoh and	Abraham to
in Egypt.	of the Pharaoh.	patron of Joseph.	knew not Joseph.	date of the exode.	Moses, years.
Bunsen,	Melrei,	Sesurteeen I.,	Tnthmosls III.,	Manephthah,
bjO.8877.	8th Dynasty.	12th Dynasty.	18th Dynasty.	19th Dynasty. B.C. 1S20.	1657
Lepsiua.	Tnthmosia IV.	Sethosts I.,	Ramesses 11.,	Manephthah,
B.O. UiOO.	or his son Ame- nophis III. 18th Dynasty.	19th Dynasty.	19th Dynasty.	19th Dynasty. B.C. 1814. Sethos II.,	180
OBbarn,	Acthoes,	Aphophls,	Ramesses II.,	19th Dynasty.	660
B.O. dr. 9000.	11th Dynasty.	17th Dynasty.	19th Dynasty.	BX3. 1814.

It is worthy of note that, on these six separate subjects connected with the Israelites in Egypt, of the three advocates for the shorter chronology, who are distinguished for their study of Egyptology and for their prolonged investigations of the matter at issue, Lepsius and Osburn agree on one point only, and Lepsius and Bunsen on another; on the rest they are wide as the poles asunder.

There are two other points which demand a brief notice. If the Pharaoh of the exode is to be found amongst the kings of the eighteenth dynasty, it requires that the patron of Joseph should be looked for amongst the "shepherd kings," which appears at first sight to be opposed to the declaration in Scripture, that "every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians," Gen. xlvi. 34. Believing that Osburn

that the father of Amosis wa< also called king Ramet, the husband of qaeen Aah, hotep.

* Rawlinson's Herod,, ii., § 8 note. ' BgypVi Place, vol. iv., pp. 492-3.

1863.] Revelation and Science. 163

is right in declaring the " shepherd king " Aphophis*" to have been the patron of Joseph, as Sjncellus in the eighth century sajs was admitted by all, and as I have endeavoured to prove at length in Revelation and Science, we may expUun the Hebrew of Scripture in rather a different sense from what our English version conveys. Though the word Txxffn undoubtedly means, as it is translated, " abomination," and as it is so used in Gen. xliii. 32, of the ninety places in which it occurs in the Old Testament it far more freauently signifies " idols " or objects of worship, which was necessarily " aoomination " in the sight of Jehovah. And it is rather singular that we find in 2 Kings xxiii. 13, "when the abomination " or idolatry of the Zidonians and Moabites is spoken of, the Hebrew word po is nsed, whereas in the same verse when " the abomination of the children of Ammon," who were of the same race as the Egyptians, is referred to, rsss^ is used. Further, if we take the unpointed Hebrew for our guide, which is in reality the only inspired text of Scripture, the words |ms nn translated "shepherd'' mean " consecrated goats," so that the passage may fairly be rendered " every consecrated goat is an object of worship or idolatry with the Egyptians.^' It needs no evidence to prove that such was the case, for Manetho is sufficient witness that as early as the time of Pharaoh Ceechos, the second king of the second dynasty, " the bulls Apis in Memphis and Mnevis in Heliopolis, and the Mendesian goat were appointed to be gods/' This rendering of Scripture enables us to reconcile the context with the elanse in dispute, which with the usual translation is somewhat difficult to do; for Joseph prompted his brethren to tell Pharaoh when asked that their occupation had been shepherds or persons who had the care of cattle. They did so tell Pharaoh, in consequence of which they were appointed his shepherds, and had the best of the land allotted to them, which would hardly have been the case had the race of shepherds been such an " abomination " in the sight of the Egyptians as our English version implies, and as those who deny that Joseph was viceroy under a shepherd king are compelled to assert.

Further, the internal evidence of the Scripture account of the Israelites in Egypt tends to shew that Thebes the ancient capital of npper Egypt, and durine the Ramessian dynasty of the whole country, did not occupy that position either during the vice-royalty of Joseph or at the time of the Exode. The Mosaic record and Manetho combine to prove that the Israelites during their two hundred and fifteen years sojourn in the country were located in lower Egypt, especially in that

" In Reveiaiion and Science I have identified, upon the authority of Osburn, the shepherd king Aphophis with Pepi of the sixth dynasty. 1 have been since convinced that this cannot stand, as the standards, crown titles and prenomens of the two are all different. It does not affect the question at issue concerning Joseph's patron. And it is sstis&ctory for those who believe Aphophis to have been the patron of Joseph, to know that his official and 6imily names in the two usual cartouches have been discovered at Tanis (the Zoan of Scripture) on an inscription on the left shoulder of a granite statue of Ramesses the Great ; and the names of this Pharaoh are accompanied hj the following title, '* worshipper of the god Soutech/' which deity was, as Brugsch justly remarks, the '* sole object of his worship to the exclusion of all the other gods of the whole country."

M 2

164 Revelation and Science, [Aprils

portion of it termed the Delta, which, under the Hebrew name of Goshetiy had originally been allotted to the sons of Jacob. This is one of many other incidental proofs that the Pharaoh of the exode is to be sought amongst the sovereigns of the eighteenth dynasty in accordance with the requirements of Scripture chronology, and not, as my reviewer and others have proposed, three hundred years later among the suc- cessors of Ramesses the Great. B. W. Savile.

P.S. — I have omitted to mention one important argument from Scripture in favour of five hundred and sixty-six years being the true interval fVom the exode to the temple. . Judges xi. 26 gives a period of " three hundred years," during which Israel possessed '* Heshbon and the cities of the coasts " before the time when Jephthah was judge. Computing this from the time of the first servitude under Ghusan to the fifth servitude under the Amonites, to which the passage refers, we have exactly three hundred complete or three hundred and one curreixt years according to the summation in the book of Judges. Clinton CFast, Hell., i., 314), who computes six hundred and twelve years as the duration from the exode to the temple, conjectures that the passage should be understood as three hundred and forty-seven years in place of "three hundred," on the grounds that "round numbers" are so applied in Scripture. We have scarcely sufficient warrant to adopt his conjecture here; and the difference between the distinct statement of Scripture and the conjecture amounts to the required number of forty- seven years; for 612—566=46 complete, or forty-seven current years. It is also an incidental argument from Scripture against the advocates of the German school, who so unwarrantably propose to curtail the whole period from the exode to the temple about haif its real duration.

As Mr. Bosanquet continues to uphold his former opinion " thai the Lydo-Median war was terminated by the solar eclipse of b.c. 585 CJ» S, X., p. 170), allow me to point out in confirmation of Dr. Hincks's statement of the fallacy of this opinion, that Professor Adams's dis- covery respecting "the moon's secular acceleration" requires, as he himself informs me, an alteration of about " one and half hours " in the computation of eclipses as distant as the one referred to above. Mr. Bosanquet's conclusion from the eclipse of Thales can therefore no longer be sustained.

Further, I would venture to remind him, as he appears to lay much stress upon Sir Isaac Newton's chronology, that with reference to this period of history the great mathematician so far from identifying Darius the Mede with Darius Hystaspes, which may be described as the foundation of Mr. Bosanquet's system, gives the chronology as follows : " B.C. 538, Babylon taken by Cyrus. 536, Cyrus overcomes Darius the Mede, and translates the empire to the Persians. 529, Cyrus dies. 521, Darius the son of Hystaspes reigns" fj Short Chronicle by Sir Isaac Newton, p. 40).

1863.] Notes on Romans iii. 3—9. 165

NOTES ON ROMANS III. 3—9.

The following notes on the above passage^ which, I am aware, waa commented upon not long since in The Journal of Sacred Literature, have been written with no intention of entering into controversy, but from the persuasion that Scriptural science may be promoted by the mere exhibition of different and independent interpretations of difficult texts. The subject which St. Paul treats of in this portion of the Epistle commences with verse 3, which has no connection with the preceding verse, as is shewn by its beginning with a formula (T/ ffap ;) which is especially used to dismiss what goes before, either as less important than what follows, or unconnected with it, or as being beside the main purpose of the writer ; and, generally, to denote a transition to a different subject. The expression occurs in some one of these senses in Phil. i. 16, and in the following passages of the Book of Job, iv. 179 vi- ^9 vi* 22, xv. 7, zvi. 3, and xxi. 4. In all the instances from Job it is followed by firj with a question, as in the passage before us. Examples of the same usage are met with in the Greek Tragedians and in Xenophon. In Cyrt Discipl., i. 6, 12 (Ed. Schneider), the formula is put at the commencement of a paragraph to introduce a new subject. Its peculiar force is noticed by the commentator in a note to Cyri DiscipL, v. 2, 27, where also several other iustances are collected. From a consideration of all the cases, I am led to take t/ 7ri/> ; at the beginning of verse 3, as indicating that St. Paul dismisses further reference to the privileges of the Jews, and reverts to the main subject of the Epistle, which, at i. 179 be announces to be the doctrine of " righteousness from faith," BiKaioavmf iic wicTeuy^.

In the first place, having that doctrine in mind, he makes. the adverse admission, ei rfTriarffffav nve?, " if some disbelieved." Here it would be altogether unreasonable to say that certain classes or indivi- duals are referred to, because no intelligible writer would in that case use the indefinite word tiv€9, and give no clue to the reference. As we must suppose that St. Paul was understood by those to whom he wrote, the sentence can have no meaning which is not fully conveyed by the terms employed. Now this will be the case if we take it in the*general acceptation, " if, as matter of fact, unbelief has existed ;" for the fact is sufficiently established if some, — no matter who, or how many, — at some time disbelieved. This view accounts for the aorist r^irlarriaav. After the admission, the Apostle goes on to ask, *' shall their unbelief make the faithfulness of God of none effect ?" It may be maintained that irumv should here be translated " faithfulness," on the ground that the faith of man and the faithfulness of God are so related that the latter is the foundation of the former. When anything rests, it must have something to rest upon. Consequently, in the absence of faith, the faithfulness of Grod would seem to be inoperative. This may be taken to be the reason for the question. Shall man's unbelief make God's faithfulness without effect ?

That question is answered in verse 4, as follows : " Not so : let God be true [as being faithful], and every man a liar [as being without

1C6 Correspondence. [April,

faith], that, as it is written, thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou contendest in judgment." In this argument, it is assumed that sin is necessarily the consequence of unbelief, or, as is elsewhere said, that " whatever is not of faith is sin.*' The being a *' liar " is specified, because it is the opposite to being *'true;" but the succeeding part of the sentence shews that sin in general is meant. Now, with respect to this part, which is quoted from Psalm li. 4, there can be no doubt, both from the context in the Ptolm, and from the application here made by St. Paul, that it contains distiuctlv the assertion that a condition of things in which man is sinful and Ood is faithfnl, was antecedently ordered for the express purpose of manifesting the righteousness of God and making it an objective reality. A judicial proceeding, in which man is concerned, must needs receive an outward manifestation. And, accordingly, we find here terms employed which are rendered intelligible by the proceedings of humaa courts of justice. In the English version of the Psalms, we have " when thou judgest " corresponding to eV np KptveaOat ae in the Sep- tuagint, which expression, in the Epistle to the Romans, is translated, *' when thou art judged." But the middle verb Kpiv^aBat is used with reference to two parties in a suit at law, between whom a question of right is to be decided ; and that this is the signification in the present passage is clear from the verb vi§c^atf9, " that thou mightest overcome" For this reason, I have given t^e* translation, " when thou contend* est in judgment," this rendering being also supported by the sense of 719 6 Kpiv6fAjBv69 fiot in Isaiah 1. 8, corresponding to which, in the English version, we have, " Who will contend with me ?" That the argument of the Apostle up to this point has been correctly represented, will become more apparent after the discussion of verse 5, to which I now proceed.

Verse 5 admits of the following translation : " But if our unrighteous* ness constitutes the righteousness of God, what shall we say ? Is God unrighteous in inflicting punishment ?" The expression o impepwv op^v, is literally ** who inflicts anger," the moving cause ** anger " being put for the effect '' punishment." The translation of ^vi^/im^i by " constitutes," keeps close to the original meaning of the word, and on that account is to be preferred to ** commends," which, being a par- ticular sense, remote from the primitive signification, could scarcely have any application in so abstract and general an argument as this. Besides which, the first clause of this verse is clearly a repetition, in different terms, of the conclusion drawn in the preceding verse ; and that conclusion, as we have seen, is, that the sinfulness of man is a necessary antecedent of the manifestation of the righteousness of God* It is true that the term employed is '* constitutes," and not "mani- fests;" but this may be accounted for by the consideration that righteousness, being essentialhr objective, is constituted by external manifestation. The purpose of St. Paul, in adducing the previous con- clusion, is to remove a difiiculty which it obviously raises, and which every one who feels the interest that ought to be felt in these matters, will desire to see cleared up. If man's sin constitutes God's righteous-

1863.] Notes on lUmans iii., 3—9. 167

ness, it may well be asked, is tbere not injustice in punishing us for our sins f The answer given by the Apostle to this question demands close eonsideration.

He distinctly denies (verse 6) the inference, after interposing lavra avOpmroy \erfw, to indicate the ground of his denial, the context shew- ing that these words refer to what follows, and not to the terms of the preceding question. The meaning of that expression, as gathered from uses of it in other instances, is, " I speak according to human experience and oommcMQ understanding ;*' and its applicability here is obvious from the reply given to the proposed question : " Not so : otherwise [that is, without justly inflicting punishment] how shall Ood judge the world ?" The force of this answer depends on the fact that from our own know- ledge and experience we can pronounce that judging would be a thing of nought, if the judge had not the right and the power to award punishment. It is often not sufficiently considered that instruction respecting the events of the world to come can be given only in terms drawn from the facts and experience of the present life ; — that, for instance, we could not be told of the future judgment of the world, unless we had known what judgment is by present experience. It has been ordered in the "manifold wisdom" of God, that while human jadgments are nei^essafy for the well-being of society, they, at the same time, answer that special purpose relative to our future destiny. And this being the case, it is wholly impossible that the future judgment can, in any essential particular, be diverse from judgment as now com- monly understood.

In addition to the above considerations, there are others that must be entered into before the import of St. Paul's reference in this answer to the ''judgment of the world,' ^ and its bearing on the subsequent reasoning, can be fully comprehended. It has been argued above that there cannot be in essence any di£Ference between human judgments and the divine judgments. But there is this circumstantial difference, that while human judgments must be frequent and continual to answer their purposes in this life, the judgment of the whole world, as we learn rrom Scripture, takes place once for all, and is not repeated. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi. 2), we meet with the expression xpiua fuwviov, ** eternal judgment," from which it must not be inferred that the act of judging goes on eternally and never ceases, but that the ej^eet of the great judgment is everlasting. But what is that effect ? In answering this question, which it is necessary to do before proceeding to the next step of the Apostle's reasoning, we shall be justified in employing, as before, the argument Kara cIvOpwirov, Now, respecting human tribunals, we know that their proper and essential purpose is, to search out the truth of matters and make right prevail. In virtue, then, of that argument, we may assert that the divine judgment cannot in this particular be different ; — that its end must be to establish truth and *' bring in everlasting righteousness." Since the Scriptures say, " When Thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness," (Isaiah xxvi. 9), we have the right to con- clude that such is the purpose of God's judgments wherever and

168 Correspondence. [April,

ivhenever they are unfolded in human experience. We have evidence in Psalms xcvi., xcvii., and xcviii., that the faithful in ancient days expressed with exultation and joy their expectation of the estahlishment of truth and justice hy the future judgment, and sung of the glory and honour that would thereby redound to the coming Judge. When St. Paul announced to the Athenians that '* God had appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness/' did he not intend to preach a gospel to them ?

I anticipate that an objection may be made to the above explanation, on the ground that our Lord speaks of those " who go away into eternal punishment {xoKaaiv aiwviov. Matt. xxv. 46), while the righteous go into eternal life." But the doctrine that righteousness is a necessary condition of eternal life, is clearly consistent with the teaching of St. Paul, that punishment is necessary to give effect to righteous judgment. Since, as we have seen, the epithet ^* eternal " is applied to the judg- ment, not as being such in act, but as having the effect of establishing righteousness for ever, for the same reason it is applied to the punish- ment, which gives it that effect. Here, also, the argument Kara uvOpwirov comes in in full force. The magistrate wields the sword of justice *' not in vain," but for the good of society. The parent corrects with the rod for the good of the child. Punishment is for amendment. All punishment, whether inflicted by the state or the individual, is for a purpose. It is not an end, but means to an end. Whatever is properly punishment is such, and whatever is not such is not punishment, but should be called by another name. We are not required to regard punishment of any kind as being different in essence from what it is shewn to be by common experience. On the contrary. Scripture is expressly written for those who make use of the evidence of the senses. They who do not so, who, as our Lord said, ** have eyes and see not, ears and hear not, and have not hearts to understand," justly fall into condemnation.

All that is said above applies equally to the expression Odvarof aiujvio9, simply for the reason that death must be regarded as punish- ment for sin. Unless the epithet aitvvio^, signifying duration, refers to an after effect, it is not applicable to death, which, as an objective reality, occurs at once, — in a moment of time. Moreover, whatever is properly called death, cannot in essence and end differ from natural death, by which alone we have any idea of death. But respecting natural death, we have this declaration by St. Paul: '* He that is dead is justified from sin" (Rom. vi. 7); and again, St. Peter says, '*He that has suffered in the flesh, has ceased from sin" (1 Peter iv. 1). Here we have it plainly declared that the effect of the punishment of sin by suffering and death is exemption from sin; and the same effect must be attributed to death of every form and shape, this way to eter- nal life being consecrated by the sacrifice of the Son of God, which shewed that in no other way can the moral nature of man be perfected. It is proper to remark that the expression ** eternal death" is nowhere to be found in the canonical Scriptures. There is, however, an instance of it in the £pistle of Barnabas, where it occurs in the following

1863.] Note» on Romans iii. 3—9. 169

sentence, 0^09 rov Oavarov aiwvlov fiera Ti/nupiav, *' the way of eternal death with punishmeDt" (Ep. sect. xz). Its being found in so early a Christian writing, I regard as sufficient evidence of its having apostolic authority. From the foregoing considerations we may now proceed to the discussion of the next two verses.

Terse 7 commences in some MSS. with £< Be and in others with £< rfopf which is the reading commonly adopted. The tenor of the apostle*8 ailment, according to the view I have taken of it, better agrees with the former than with the other reading, because there appears to he a transition here from what has respect to the world in general to what concerns the faithful in particular. I would, therefore, translate : ** Now if the truth of God has abounded in my lie to his glory, why yet am even I (k^^*^) judged as a sinner 7" Here again, as in verse 5, the preceding conclusion is repeated in different words for the sake of raising upon it another question. It is assumed to be sufficiently shewn by the previous arguments that the truth of God is evinced by the .untruthfulness of man, and made to abound to his glory in the future judgment of the world. But it should be observed that the antecedent reasoning establishes this doctrine on perfectly general grounds and without limitation; and that, consequently, the apostle legitimately takes it as inclusive of himself, and uses the first person in order to give distinctness to the question he next proposes. He asks, if this be the general law, so that sin in myself, as in others, contributes to God's glory, why is there no exception in regard to the judgment? Why am even I, who have received grace from God, judged as a sinner 7 The transition from the first person singular in verse 7 to the first person plural (in TrodatDfiev) in verse 8, proves that St. Paul is here speaking of himself only as being one of the class to whom the epistle is written, who in chap. i. 7 are addressed as ''be- loved of God, called to be saints;" or rather, as one of the whole body of Christian teachers and believers. Consequently, he here raises the important question, Why are the elect of God judged as sinners 7 Of course being judged as sinners involves penalty and punishment, other- wise the judgment would be of no avail. This doctrine is distinctly taught by St. Paul in 2 Cor. v. 10: "We must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each may receive the things done through the body, according to the things which he did, whether it were good or bad." And again in 1 Cor. iv. 11 — 15: *' Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones : wood, hay, stubble ; each man*s work shall become manifest; for the day shall shew it, because it is revealed in fire; and each man's work of what sort it is, the fire itself shall try. If any man's work which he built remain, he shall receive reward : if any man's work be burned, he shall suffer penalty (giffiitoOrffferai); but him- self shall be saved, yet so as by fire." The foregoing translations are nearly those of Alford. These texts suffice to prove that St. Paul taught that all the faithful, himself included, will hereafter be judged according to their works, and suffer penal consequences of their sins, to

170 Correspondence, [April,

purify them and make them perfect. But there is this great difference between them and the rest of mankind, that they do not suffer the extreme penalty of law, which is death: they are not "hurt of the second death" (Rev. ii. 11). The word which expresses their punish- ment is ^fffiia not Odvatov, It is not, however, with reference to the end of judgment, which was before admitted to be the establishment of righteousness for the glory of God, but with reference to the special reason for judging the elect, that the apostle puts the question, as we shall presently see by his answer. Before giving the answer, he adds another question (in ver. 8), which must first receive consideration.

I propose the following translation of verse 8, as being the only one which suits the previous explanations: ''And why is it not^ we are blasphemed and as some assert that we say, that we should do the evil things, that the good things of which the judgment is just may come." The firj at the beginning of the verse shews that this is a de- pendent sentence in which the preceding interrogation is to be carried on, which circumstance, with the occurrence of on l>efore vot^aw^v^ justifies the above translation of kuI fti^. The Greek of the latter part of the verse is, iva iXOij ra &^a0a Sjv ro Kplfia ivhiKov ion. The sense usually eiven to KplfjM in the last clause is "condemnation," as if it were KarZcptfia, This is simply a violent wresting of the mean- ing of the word to escape from the consequence of putting a note of interrogation after ayaBa, which has the effect of making the proper sense of Kptfia inapplicable. I have no doubt that this confusion has arisen from a misapprehension of the apostle's argument. The explanations above given of verses 4 and 5 being admitted, it will be seen that we have here reference to a perverse inference drawn from the doctrine that the order of God*s government is sin, judgment, righte- ousness. Gainsayers seem to have said that thb was to teach, that sin might be committed in order that righteousness might come. To account for the expression to r/ot/ia rwv af^aO&v^ I remark that in Psalm cxix. 7 we have, ra xfufiara T^9 ^iica404Tvvff9, Now if we take into ac- count that according to the primitive apostolic teaching righteousness is that "unspeakable gift" (2 Cor. ix. 15), by which the company of the faithful become "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;*' that it constitutes the perfection of their moral nature, and makes them " par- takers of the Divine nature;" that it is consequently the summum bonum of ancient philosophy, and a necessary condition of immortality^ it will be sufficiently evident why ra a^aOa in the above sentence is put for SiKaioavmf, This interpretation being admitted, the purport of the second question becomes clear, and it will be seen to be one which pre- sents a difficulty that requires to be answered. It remains now only to consider in what manner St. Paul answers the two questions.

The answer to the first question commences at verse 9 with the words, "What then? do we defend ourselves 7" This middle signifi- cation of vpoexofieOa, which is of classic usage, applies here in the sense, "Do we allege any reasons why we should not be judged as sinners?" The apostle replies, "No, by no means, for we before proved [t. e:, in chapters i. and ii.J both Jews and Grentiles to be all

1863.] Notes on Romans iii., 8—9. 171

noder sin." And then not stopping at the conclusion from the former ti^ment that there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in regard to being under sin, he goes on to shew bj quotations from the Scripinres, that there is no distinction in that respect betweeo the parties whom those names designated in an abstract sensCi that is be- tween belicTers and unbelievers. Both vpoexofieOa and irpoifrtaaafuOa (in Ter. 9) appear to be used in a legal acceptation. The pliiral nomi- native of the Utter verb is accounted for by the usual practice of writers identifying themselves with those to whom they are writing; but the persons who are the subjects in wpoexofieBa cannot possibly be different from those who are the snbjects in iroirfaioftet^ in the preceedine verse, who, as we argued above, might be taken to be the general body of Christian believers. Accordingly in carrying on the argument in the remainder of the chapter, speaking of '* them that believe,*' St. Paul says, " All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (ver. 23). This is the constant language of apostolic teaching. Thus St. Paul says again, ** The law has dominion over a man as long as he lives" (Rom. vii. 1). St. James writes, ''In many things we offend all" (iii. 2) ; and St. John, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive oarselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John i. 8). This being under- stood, the response of the apostle to the first question is simply this : As all without exception have sinned, all are judged as sinners, to magnify the righteousness of God. And with this agrees the doctrine of St. Peter, where he speaks of ''judgment beginning at the house of God" (1 Peter iv. 7).

With respect to the second question, it seems that no answer is given to it immediately. The apostle first founds upon the doctrine of general sinfulness a complete and careful exposition of the doctrine of righteousness and salvation through faith in chapters iv. and v., and then at length at the banning of chapter vi. reverts to the question in these terms: "What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin^that grace may abound?" By "grace" is always to be understood the "gift of righteousness," as manifested in good works. It would lead me too far to enter upon the arguments contained in chapters vi. vii. and viii., which have a direct bearing on this question, inasmuch as they consist for the most part of reasons for forsaking sin, and en- deavouring in this life to attain to righteousness and sanctification. I can only notice the one in chapter vi. beginning at ver. 2 with, " How shall we who died to sin, live any longer therein ?" It is there urged that the knowledge in the present time that death is the wages of sin, is a reason for no longer serving sin, but serving righteousness, which leads to holiness and eternal life. And this reason is made valid by the fact that the Son of God shared death with us, that through the effect of faith in him in obedience and love, we might escape the resurrection to condemnation, and partake of the resurrection to life.

I have now completed the consideration of this portion of the Epistle to the Romans, which the preceding discussion will, I think, have shewn to be the most important part of the whole epistle. It seems to be the key to the interpretation of the doctrinal teaching in the re-

172 Correspondence. [April,

inainder. Its being so brief and jet so pregnant with signification, constitutes in great measure the difficultj of comprehending it. For its elucidation, I have introduced topics, some of which might seem at first sight to be inapplicable to the passages under review; but after due de- liberation I concluded that nothing short of the whole of the foregoing discussion would have adequately represented the character of St Paul's doctrine, and the Gospel which it unfolds.

Cambridge^ March 6, 1863. J. Ghallis.

BIBLE DIFFICULTIES,

I AM much surprised at Mr. Sharpe's attempt to shew that certain passages of the Old Testament, if translated literally, would imply a distiuction between sons of Adam and sons of other men. The incor- rectness of his criticisms was so obvious that I never thought of say- ing a word on the subject; but since three letters in reply have appeared in the Journal^ and a fourth has been quoted from the Parthenon, I beg leave to make a few remarks on Psalm xlix. 3, and similar passages; for I do not agree with any of the writers in the explanations which they ofiPer. They are unanimous in supporting the translation given in the Authorized Version. Appeal is also made to Gesenius and Rosen- miiller, but I have no hesitation in saying that the proposed explanation is not supported by the usus loquendi of the Hebrew language. If all the passages in which the expressions occur are taken into account, it will be seen that the alleged distinction is quite arbitrary. The English Version recognizes it in Psalm xlix. 2^ Ixii. 10; Isaiafi xxxi. 8; ii. 9; v. 15, but nowhere else, not even in Prov. viii. 4, which is referred to by Gesenius and his followers; nor in Job xxxii. 21, which Lee trans- lates, '< Let me now not accept the person of the respectable, nor flatter the mean man,*' although he does not make the same distinction in other passages in Job, such as xxxv. 8, xxxviii. 25, where iriHand xSivt come together, or in the similar passages xvi. 21, xxv. 6, in the former of which *^, and in the latter of which ti^^ is used along with DiHr{a. The same inconsistency which Lee shews is also shewn by the English Authorized Version. It recognizes the distinction between crw and xlm in Isaiah ii. 9, but not between crw and n^^ in verses 1 1 and 1 7 of the same chapter, and not even between the same expressions crw and «h« in Proverbs xxx. 2. Again, in Isaiah xxxi. 8, we have xCnn^ in one clause corresponding to dtjo^ in another; the Authorized Version translates the verse, " Then shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man, and the sword, not of a mean man, shall devour him;" but we find the very same parallel in Job xxxviii. 26, where the Autho- rized Version makes no such distinction. There are also cases where tth* stands alone, and yet in the opinion of some commentators is used to denote a great man, Hengstenberg has made some very absurd remarks on the use of the word in Psalm iv. 2 in support of Luther's translation, but the fact is that «r« is there used in contrast with njrr in the next verse. The Psalmist's meaning is that his enemies are mere

1863.] Bible Difficulties. 173

men and nothing more, ^hile his friend is Jehovah. The same con- trast is made by the use of viisM in Psalm iz. 21. Phillips in his Com-' mentary on the Psalms quotes with approval the remark of Kimelin that t¥i means a man of distinction^ as in Judges Tii. 1 4, where Gideon is called ^svrjipi vyvr; but the truth is that the word in that passage is no more essentially a term of honour than the same word, in 2 Sam. xviii. 10, applied to the nameless individuals who brought word to Joab that Absalom was hanging in an oak. And if it should be replied that, for anythiDg we know to the contrary, that individual was a mighty man, then I would ask, did Potiphar*s wife use «>m as a term of honour, when in her complaint to her husband she called Joseph n;^ xim, as we are told in Gen. xxxix. 14? It will not do to say that a word has a special meaning merely because it happens to be applied to a distinguished individual. The application to be of any consequence must be uniform. If the use of vh* implies in itself that Gideon was a mighty man, thfen every other person to whom it is applied must be regarded in the same light, otherwise Kimchi has merely taken advantage of an accidental circumstance.

In Isaiah xxi. 9 we find vht yy\, but in xxii. 6 we meet with dtm in, and the Authorized Version translates both expressions by the same words. It would be absurd to say that officers were exclusively referred to in the one place, and common soldiers only in the other. In the same way, in 2 Kings vii. 10, the lepers are represented as saying that thej found dim^, v^cr^; the form of expression is not used in order to make a distinction between officers and privates, it only means that no man whatever was found there. If there were no similar pas- sages, bat only this one and Psalm xlix. 3, then the alleged distinction might have some support; but when all the numerous passages are con- sidered together, it will be seen that there is nothing in the use of the terms to warrant the making of that distinction. This may be seen from some of the passages I have already referred to. But what would joar correspondents think of the following emendations?

2 Sam. vii. 14, '*If he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of mighty men, and with the stripes of the children of mean men.^* What is the implied distinction theni Or (Numb, xxiii. 19) '' God is not a great man that he should lie, neither the son of a mean man that he should repent." Are great men more apt to lie than to repent? and might not a mean man do the one as well as the other? Or (Micah V. 7) ** Like dew from Jehovah, like showers upon the grass, which tarry not for a mighty man, nor wait for the sons of a mean man,** How would this be in harmony with Micah's style, especially with his mode of ex- pression in this chapter, where every second clause is weightier than the parallel one which precedes it? Or, if we introduced the same distinction in the expressions used in Isa. Hi. 14, could we give a reason why " coun- tenance" is connected with man of high degree, and "former" with men of low degree? Or, finally, could it be shewn why, in Job xxv. 6, vbi is compared to n^ and crv^ to ro^ ? What is the connexion be- tween the different kinds of men and the different kinds of worms? Lee, in

1 74 Correspondence. [April,

his Commentary, says that dim contains the notion of redress, and is here compared with rn^^ the worm used in dyeing cloth sccwlet, so that the healthy ruddy young man is compared with the scarlet dye-worm. I might just as well assert that nq^n, which often denotes a worm pro- duced hy putrifaction, is connected with ctm, because when (according to the divine decree) man returns n^i|«T^ he will putrify and breed worms. Making remarks of this kind would be mere trifling. But the follow- ing observation. is not trifling. In Exodus zvi. 20 we are told that the manna which was kept till the next morning bred tr^, and in verse 24 we are told that what was kept from the sixth till the seventh day did not breed rresy ; thus, both words denote the same kind of worms, but the one is used in the plural, the other is a collective. And in the passage in Job both are used together, according to the same poetical form of expression to which we owe the use of ^^ and mifia together in that same verse, as well as the use of v)>m and crm in Psalm xlix. 3, and elsewhere.

One of the passages appealed to is Prov. viii. 4. This is a very unfortunate appeal, instead of supporting the distinction it helps to prove that no such distinction was ever thought of by the Hebrew writers. Wisdom is represented as saying " unto you (cr«hi) I call, and my voice is to the cnH ^^a/' here it might be said that the rare form D^ is used instead of d^^ for the very purpose of strongly bringing out the distinction, but the very next verse is decisive against this view, it reads dh u>n nhv3\ ntro? d^mtid ^m. Now I would ask, which class of men are the d^khb, and which are the tTH^? ? ^s it not the same form of expression which we find in both verses? Certainly it is, and in Ps. xlix. 3 we ought not to pair the words. Of course it is quite easy to distinguish between i^ and ^'sm, but we have no right to say that rb^ '3^ refers to the one, and di^ ^^ to the other. The repetition of di, does not make the two classes exclusively distinct from each other. la Judges V. 4, we find a very eood parallel expression, it is there said p^ w^ crp¥^ ^) D!pa3ta. Did the writer make a distinction there be- tween what came from the heavens and what came from the clouds? Also in Job xv. 10, we find u| Mnai iteroi, and I am sure that there is no reference to difierent classes here. By this I do not mean to say that we are to confound words which are not quite synonymous, bat I mean that synonymous words or expressions are often used togeUier for the purpose of poetical effect. A good book on Hebrew synonyms is much required. And it is one of the distinguishing merits of Hupfeld'a commentary on the Psalms that great attention is given to exhibit the precise shade of meaning which belongs to different words incorrectly- regarded as <}uite synonymous, but Hupfeld takes care not to make any such distinction between xlm and dim, as your correspondents and others have done. On the passage in question, he says, ** Kein Gegensatz^ sondem blosserparallelismus;'' and again, in another place, he says re- garding all such passages that in every case without exception it is " lediglieh poetischer parallelismus'' I am convinced that Hupfeld is

1863.] Bible Difficulties. 175

right, and that those who hold the contrary opinion have heen too hasty. A careful review of all such passages shews this. It is easy to cite one or two instances in regard to the special use of a word, and then lay down a general rule; but the proper mode of procedure is to review all the instances and form one's opinion from a conjunct view of the whole, — I think I have adduced enough to shew that the proposed distinction is unfounded. And there are many more passages which might be appealed to, all of which would shew that xcrvi, «}^>t, and sometimes w^, are used in poetical parallelism with dim or oj^, where it would be extremely absurd to refer the words to different classes of men. In addi- tion to what I have already mentioned, I might cite Isaiah Ivi. 2; Jeremiah xlix. 18; li. 43; Psalm Ixxiii. 5. In all these cases the meaning is '* any man" and ''all men," *' all the sons of men." Be- sides, in 1 Kings viii. 39, xlr» is evidently included in 01^34 ; while in Psalm Ixxx. 18, «)<m and dhmt]! refer to the same individual whoever he may be. I may also add that in the well-known duplicate. Psalm cv. 1 — 15, and 1 Chron. xvi. 8 — 22, we have in the former (ver. 14) cnM, while in the latter (ver. 21) we meet with xir^. Now, surely, no one will assert that the change was designed in order that the idea "mighty sum" might be substituted for " mean man" or vice versd, as the case may be.

Bat there are other words besides those under consideration which are used in the same way together in poetical parallelism. Many examples might be given, but it will be enough to refer to one as a specimen, and we get a very good one in Isaiah v. 12, «)^; kib rtvv \vb «(i 16 rr TiiDvan, regarding which it must be remembered that elsewhere Vn is used with t, so that the distinction which some would introduce here is quite unfounded. The double expression is for poetical effect.

Something similar to this is the use qt two words in the same clause, both having the same signification; sometimes these words are from different roots, as Gren. i. 2, vtiiwi; iv. 12, 13^39;; Isaiah xxx. 7, pn^Vsr; sometimes again from the same root, as Ezekiel vi., 14, rjogp n^to'; Job xxx. 7, nK«5t« rrM. If the Hebrew writers thus joined synonyms in the same clause together, we need not be astonished at their making repetitions in parallel clauses in order to give a high degree of emphasis to their expressions, or often merely for the sake of poetical embellishment.

The view which I have been controverting is of Jewish extraction. No doubt we are greatly indebted to the learned rabbis who laboured earnestly and indefatigably to illustrate the language and literature of their fathers; but it must at the same time be said that Jewish com- mentators are generally very unsafe guides in a matter of this kind. They were fond of minute distinctions, but they often neglected to take into view all the phenomena of each particular case; they sought out hidden reasons, and so they often condescend to paltry trifling, while they seem to have altogether failed to appreciate the poetic force and effect of many expressions and usages.

January 2Sth, 1863. J. Mc. G.

«■

176 Correspondence. [April,

READING THE CURSINGS AND BLESSINGS TO THE

ISRAELITES.

At a period when the simple facts narrated in the Law and the Book of Joshua are so stoutly denied, perhaps the following incident will not be uninteresting to jour readers.

In the year 1855, during a term of several months in the Holy Land, I visited Nahlus, and, as a matter of course, paid some attention to the two mountains Gerizim and Ebal, which stand opposite each other like two giants, the valley of Nablus running between them from east to west. My stay in the place was but short — some three days — biit I saw enough to enable me to realize the circumstance of the narrative respect- ing the reading of the blessings and cursings.

The words of the Law are these — " And it shall come to pass, saith Moses, " When the Lord thy God hath brought thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt put the blessings upon Mount Gerizim and the curse upon Mount Ebal, are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the champaign, over against Gilgal, beside the plain of March?" (Deut. xi. 29, 30). And again, ''And Moses charged the people the same day, saying, these shall stand upon Mount Gerizim to bless the people when ye are come over Jordan ; Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Joseph, and Benjamin; and these shall stand on Mount Ebal, and curse; Reuben, Grad, and Asher, and Zebnlun, Dan, and Naphtali," (Ibid, xxvii. 11 — 13.) Such were the divine instructions given by Moses to his servant Joshua, and these, we learn, were faithfully fulfilled.

Having passed over the Jordan, the people eventually marched on westward, until they came to the appointed place, and pitched their tents on the plain to the east of the mountains, already explained. On the day when the law was to be read, we are told, that " All Israel, and their eiders, and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, as well the stranger, as he that was born among them ; half of them over against Mount Grerizim, and half of them over against Mount Ebal; as Moses, the servant of the Lord, had com- manded before, that they should bless the people of Israel. And after- ward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them." (Josh. viii. 33 — 35.)

Let us now pause for a moment to review this wonderful event. All the people gather themselves out of their tents on the plain, and wind their way in all directions to the valley between the two mountains. The ark is placed in the middle of the valley with the officers on each side.

The Levites from the one-half of the tribes stood upon the lower

Ib63.] Cursings and Blessings. 177

spor of Gerizim to read the blessings and Levites from the other half stood upon the lower spur of Ebal to read the curses. The vast con- gregation filled the valley, and the women and children covered the tides of the mountains as locusts in number. The Levites oh Mount Gerizim then read the blessings, and the Levites on Ebal read the cursings, to which the vast assembly responded. Amen ! What a sublime sight! a congregation and a service, compared with which all other assemblies the world has ever witnessed dwindle into insignificance. Those who have seen the spot, and have examined it, can readily realize the scene. Just where the two mountains approach each other nearest, are the two lower spurs, where the Levites would stand to read, looking like two noble pulpits prepared by nature. The valley running between looks just like the floor of a vast place of worship. The slopes of both mountains recede gradually, and offer room for hundreds of thousands to be conveniently seated to hear the words of the Law. The first time I stood upon that lower spur of Gerizim, the whole scenery struck me forcibly as if divine providence had conformed its physical features so as to meet the requirements of the occasion. There is plenty of room, and to spare, for the whole congregation of Israel, the men in the valley, and the women and children on the slopes of the mountains. But the question is, could the vast assembly hear any one read the blessings and cursings T This has been advanced as a most serious ob- jection to the truthfulness of the narrative.

And this objection would come with greater force still to those who have imagined the reading to have taken place on the very summits of the mountains — an idea which has no foundation in the Scripture narra- tive— although Christians, as early as Jerome, as well as Josephus and the Talmud, seem to have adopted that notion. In reply to this, authors have generally pointed out the great difference between the state of the atmosphere in that country compared with that of our own, and how much farther one can see and hear in Palestine than in Great Britain. Travellers have been surprised at this difference in all parts of Palestine and Syria. One day, when passing down the valley, we noticed two shepherds holding a conversation — one was on the top of Gerizim, out of our sight, and the other was close by us in the valley. Dr. Robinson mentions a spot in the Lebanon where the voice can be beard for two miles.

After I had left the spot, I much regretted not having made some experiment, so as to satisfy myself on this point; but in I860 I visited Nabius a second time, and during that stay (some eight or nine weeks), I had the satisfaction of experimenting upon the subject ; the first time, I believe, such an attempt was ever made since the days of Joshua. I bad satisfied myself more than once, during my stay in Nabius, on this point, and relating this to my friends there, a party, including Am ram, the priest, agreed to go with me to the spot and repeat the whole ceremony.

Circumstances, however, prevented us from carrying out our inten- tions ; but before I left the country, two friends joined me, and on our way northward from Jerusalem we made the experiment. Vte had

NEW SERIES. — VOL. 'III., NO. V. N

178 Correspondence. [Aprils

pitched oar teat in the Talley near the foot of Oeriiioi, on the line between the two mountains where I have supposed the Ark stood, I clambered up Gerizim, and Mr. Williams up £bal — preferring that be should have all the cursings and I the blessings — Mr. Edwards remain- ing with the men at the tent. Having reached the lower spur, I found myself, as before mentioned, just as if I stood upon a lofty pulpit, and mj friend found himself on a similar one on Ebal. Having rested our- sdves a little, I opened my Bible and read the blesainga in Hebrew, and every word was heard most distinctly by Mr. Edwards at the tent, as well as by Mr. Williams on Ebal. My friend then read the cursings in Welsh, and we all heard every word and syllable; before we descended Mr. Edwards requested us to sing, and gave out,

** Praise God from whom all blatsings flow.''

I commenced it upon the tune •' Savoy," or the " Old Hundredth,** bnt as I happened to stand on a rery elevated pulpit, I pitched the tune in a key too high for them to join me. I was determined, howerer, to sing it through, and if I erer sang well, and with spirit, I did so then on Gerizim, and was heard most distinctly by all ; it vms our impression at the time, and still is, that if the whole area before and around ns had been filled with two millions of Israel, every sonl among them would have heard perfectly clear every note and syllable.

John Mills.

JUDAH'8 GRANDSONS.

The following explanation of the difficulty connected with Judah's grandsons appears to have the advantage of being more in accordance with the Sacred Record than any other explanation I have yet seen. I submit it to the consideration of the readers of the Journal.

The birth of Pharez and Zarah is mentioned previous to the account of Joseph's sojourn in Egypt. The story of their birth and of Judah's unfortunate connexion with the Canaanites appears to be in- serted here, because Judah was now living again with his brethren, and was the man to suggest the idea of selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites. The story is also placed in striking contrast to the character of Joseph as given in the chapter immediately following. In the Hebrew, the first and second verses of the thirty-eighth chapter can be read thus: —

''And it came to pass at the same time that Judah went down from his brethren, that he turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah; and Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah," or thus: " And it came to pass at the ssme time at which Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah, that Judah 'saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah."

The date of the beginning of the thirty-eighth chapter is the date at which Judah began to dwell apart from his brethren; but the prin- cipal part of the narrative, verses 12 — ^30, refers evidently to a much later

1868.] Judak's Grand$on8. 179

|ieiiod ; msbA Jadfth'sBOggcstioo that Josepli should be sold seems to belong to ft time when he htd returned to li^e affsin ftoiong his brethren, and perhaps to a time very near to that at which Phares and Zarah were bora. Probably soon after his wife's death he returned to live among his brethuen. Or the scandalous affiiir of Tamar may have led him to leave his Canaanite friends altogether and go back to his father and brethren, as a refuge from his disgrace. But, be this as it may, ike mUy decided iimii a$ to time that can constitute a difficulty, is the dif- ference in age between Judah and Joseph.

Jndah was Leah's fourth mm. If we suppose he was born in the eleventh year of Jacob's residence with Laban, and that Rachel was married nearly «t the same time with Leah; then Joseph, (who was bom, at the earliest, after Jacob had been fourteen years with Laban,) amy have been three years older than Judah. but if Rachel was nuinied only in the fourteenth year, Joseph may have been bom in the fifteenth, sixteenth, or even as late as the nineteenth or twentieth year. And, at whatever time Raehd was married, the birth of Joseph was a very late event in the history of the twenty years. It is not necessary to snpmse that the bargain about the cattle (Gen. nx. 27) was altogether prospective. It may have been retrospective as well; and we snow that Jacob said Laban had changed his wages ten times. So, then, Joseph may have been bom in the twentieth year, and may have been nine or ten years younger than Judah. Moreover, may not the fulfilment of certain day on Joseph's part, and ih^ fulfilment of Leah's and Rachel's weeks, respectively, have a different meaning ftom seven years ? May not Jacob's promise and a certain short period of service, as a pledge for the rest, have sufficed? Commentators aUow that Raehel was married soon after Leah; and if the seven years are antici- pated in the one case, why not in the other? If we explain the fulfil- ment of her week and the fulfilment of certain dajfs (not years) on Jacob's part, as satisfactory pledges to Laban, then Leah as well as Rachel mi^ have been married soon after the stipulated seven years bepan to rmn; and Jndah may have been born, in that case, about sixteen or seveoteea years before Joseph, and may have been married soon after Jacob and his fiunily arrivea in Canaan.

Again, dironologers omit to notice that the years of plenty may have 4»me at a certain interval of years after Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream. Though the words ** God will shortly bring it to pass" are used, it by no means follows that some years did not inter- vene. Jf five years . intervened, or if Bishop Cmenso should press ns hard, and we should say that ten years may have intervened, who •hail say it is absnrd or contradictory to make the assumption, rather than assume that the narrative is false?

Further, suppose Shdah's betrotkal was expected by Tamar (and marriages as well as betrothals appear to have been early contracted in patriarobal times, as they are accounted favourable to chastity at all times), and that he might have been betrothed at thP age of fourteen or eariier, we have then only fifteen years of difference between his age and that pf Pharez ^nd Zarah.

N 2

180 . Correspowience. [April,

Taking, then, the largest margin we have allowed oarselVes, Joseph was thirty when he appeared before Pharaoh, forty when the years of plenty began, and nearly fifty when Jacob went down into Egypt. Judah, if seventeen years older, was sixty-seven at that period. Shelab, if born when his father was twenty-one, would be only four years younger than Joseph, that is, forty-six years of age, and Pharez (four- teen years younger than Shelah) thirty-two years old — an age at which he might have two sons of twelve or fourteen years of age* But we caa afford to deduct twelve or fourteen years; for it would be sufficient to find time for the birth of Hezron and Hamul on the journey down to Egypt.

It may be said that the suppositions we have now made are too favourable to the Pentateuch. But are they such as can be entertained? Do they involve no impossibilities or contradictions? That is the ques- tion. Because every possible supposition is to be preferred to the alter- native left us by Bishop Colenso.

If any one of the assumptions we have now made can be proved to be absurd or impossible, we shall be glad to cast it aside.

Our belief is that the genealogical list (including the names of Ephraim and Manasseh, as well as those of Hezron and Hamul) was a list of Jacob's living sons and grandsons^ at the time they all took up •their abode willingly in Egypt.

We recapitulate the points at which we daim a larger allowance of years than has hitherto been given :

1 . The earlier date of Leah's marriage.

2. The later date of Joseph's birth.

3. The earlier date of Judah's marriage.

4. The earlier date of betrothals and marriages generally, and of Shelah' 8 expected betrothal, in particular.

5. A longer interval between the interpretation of Pharaoh's dream and its fulfilment.

I do not dogmatise on any of those points. Dogmatism is out of the question on matters on which only guesses are possible. But on the other hand, I am ready to set aside whatever I have said that can be shewn to be not in accordance with revealed truth, or not in accordance with facts that are otherwise discoverable, and are proved to be facts.

J. L. Blake.

ON THE ANTIQUITY OF THE NAME JEHOVAH.

The concluding words of Genesis iv., in whatever manner they are to be literally rendered, plainly import (as do the words of Eve in the first verse of the same chapter), that the name of " Jehovah " was known when they were uttered : and there are several other passages implying its having been known before the time of Moses. This is thought by some to be inconsistent with the saying of God to Moses, according to our authorized version (Ex. vi. 3), "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but [by] my

,1868.] On the Goddess Nanaa. 181

name Jehovah was I not known to them" : and they suppose the name to have been altered, in the cases of its meotion before the age of Moses, or the passages in which it is so meutiooed to have been intro* doced after, or during, his time. To neither of these opinions can we assent ; nor are we satisfied with any of the well-known replies to them. But if, in these words addressed to Moses, we understand the last verb agreeably with the primary signification of its root, and lite' raUy, and thus render it **9een" instead of " know," so as to exclude the cases in which God appeared in the name of " Jehovah," in a stfion or dream (Gen. xv. 1 — 7, and xxviii. 12, 13), ihe supposed incon- tiMiency disappears. Why, then, should we adopt a secondary signifi- cation ? Two of the instances to which the words refer, and two only, are recorded : these being in Gen. xvii. 1 and xxxv. 11 ; and in neither of them is any mention or indication of a vision or dream ; nor is there any in the instance of this address to Moses, to whom we are taught that God appeared in a more intimate and glorious manner than He had to any before him. As this question is one of the utmost importance, affecting the authenticity of much of the book of Genesis, we desire to draw to our remarks upon it the special attention of Biblical students.

By the Author of the " Genesis of the Earth and Man."

ON THE GODDESS NAN^A.

I READ with some curiosity in your last number of the J. S, Z., at p. 497, M. Jules Oppert's notice of the Goddess Nana, or Nanaa, as being alluded to iu an Assyrian inscription, relative to the tower of Borsippa.

'* In any case," that author adds, "Nana, the Nanaa of the Greeks, is not identical with the heavenly Venus of Herodotus. . . . She has some affinity to Hecate, and she seems to represent the Moon in its three phases."

And he further remarks, in another inscription, she is termed " the Great Goddess."

Having had occasion, six years ago, to examine the question of the supposed identity of Nanaa with Venus, I came to the same conclusion as M. Oppert has subsequently done in his work on Mesopotamia; viz., that these goddesses are not identical.

Since many of your readers have very likely never perused my small work, wherein my remarks on this subject are given, I will not apologize to you in here referring to them.

In a short paper, entitled, " Notice of the Annals of Granius Lici- niantts," as contained in a Palimpsestic manuscript brought from Egypt, which was published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Litera- ture, in the year 1 859, I described Dr. C. A. F. Pertz's then recent work on Granius Licintanus's Annals of Roman History, as preserved in a fragmentary Palimpsest MS., brought from a convent in the desert of Nitria a few years before, and which is now lodged in the library of the British Museum.

At pp. 221-2, Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature,

182 Correspondence, [Aprils

* ▼ol. vi., part 2, it will be seen that mj obserratioDS respecting dwrOodi>

dess Natuea are as follow: —

'* In the last page of Book 36, the annalist ((dramas liciniainis), writing of Antiochas IV. (Epiphanes), King of Syria (between b. c. 174 and 163), gives this account of him.

" Simulabat Hierapoli Dianam dueere uxorem, et cet • . • epnlati . . . sacro protulissenty causatQS h mansisf • . . tulit ei doiem ex . . • am qaem nnum omnium Dea donit reliquit/' (p. 46.) To this the editor in his note (3) adds : " Cf. 2 Maecab., cap. i., 14."

*' And for the sake of a comparison of the Biblical and lieinianns's records, I here cite verse \4, of the chapter referred to in Maccabees.

*' For Antiochus> as though he would many her (Nomm), came into the place> and his friends that were with him, to receive monej in nam^ of a dowry J^' Thej thus appear to be remarkably parallel, notwith^ standing that the annalist's statement is imperfect.

'' The HierapoUe, which he there names, was the chief town in Cjrrhestica, in the north-east of Syria, not far from the Euphrates. It was the principal place for the worship of Atargatie or Astarte, who may very probably be identified with Nan»a, mentioned in that chapter of Maccabees; and whom, as Stackhouse observes, some suppose to have been Venus, but others Diana, and in support of this latter god- dess, I will refer to two passages from Lucian. This writer, in chap- ter i.. Be Bed Syrid, names the town as Hire only, t. e., *\fni, mean- ing sacred; there, according to Pliny (iVa^. ^Tm^., lib. v., cap. 19), * prodigiosa Atargatia . . . colitur.* "

*' Now, it is generally considered that Atargatis and Astarte are the Mame; and in the fourth chapter. Be Bed Syrid, Lucian explains that he * thinks Astarte to be Luna;' or, in his own words, *AffiapTti¥ ^ i^ftr BoK€tt> ^e\i]vaiffv ififiepm, — consequently, thb Selensea, or Luna, or Astarte, may be identified with Biana.

*' This then is evidently a passage of great interest; and, although fragmentary, it is still worthy of a fuller comparison with the narrative contained in the Second Book of Maccabees.

Norton-house, Stoekton-on-Tees. John Hogg.

THE ENGLISH BIBLE AND DR. BENISCH.

I AM very glad that your correspondent. Dr. Benisch, has taken occasion from my note to open up the question of the real meaning of the word rt in the twelfth verse of the second Psalm. 1 believe that I was wrong in attributing to him any intention of being guided in his views by the conceits of the Talmud, though I think it may be fairly proved on philological grounds, that the reading in the Authorized Version is alone consistent with the ** general tenor and purport " of the Psalm itself.

Of course there can be no doubt that had the reading in the teart been "^an v^s instead of -o ypv^h the undoubted translation would be "

1863.] The English Bible and Dr. Benisch. 188

the Son/' Bat tinwillii^ to admit that the two words " may " have the same meaning, your correspondent sajs that ni is not Hebrew but Chaldee, and in the sense of " son " is only found for certain in one tmgle passage ia the Bible (Prov. zxxi. 2), and that too iu a passage where moreover a Chaldee form of a Hebrew word distinctly occurs. From this, I imagine, he wonld lead us to infer that the word being Chaldee, haa not probably the signification of " son *' in the second Ftelm, because it is not, as in Proverbs, found in a verse in which there are already Chaldee forms. To this criticism I must demur, for high authority ia against it. Rosenmuller in his Scholia on the Old Testament, commenting on this word, says, '' Sed stylum poeticum Hebrasorum ad Chaldaismum vergere, pluribus ostendit Gesenius in Prsefat. ad Lexicon Hebraicum maj., p. xxv. seq. et eiusdem Geschichte der hebraisch. Sprache und Schrifl, p. 22." And again, in his Lexicon on the word -q, " Vocabolum in Lingua Chaldeea usitatissimum apud Hebrseos sermani poetico proprium/' So far satisfactory. But your eorrespondent also says that " the word under discussion occurs as an adjective either in the masculine or feminine three times in the Psalma (xix. 1; xxiv. 4; Izxiii. .1), and in the whole Bible seven times, and in not a single instance can it mean * son,* but is always rightly rendered ' clean' or ' pure.' " But if the word -q in these places, taken adjectively, cannot possibly have any other signification but that of "dean" or "pure" (which may readily be admitted), how therefore does it follow that the same word has the same signification as a " substan- tive," when there is nothing in the context which affords the slightest ground for the identification: But independently of the above critical reasons, we may confidently appeal in support of the reading in the Authorized Version to an authority which Dr. Benisch himself will be disposed to respect, a co-religionist of olden time. To the majority of the religious world, it seems roost evident that the Son in the twelfth verse of the second Psalm is identical with the Son in the seventh verse, and auch it appeared to the learned Rabbi £bn Ezra. Quoted in RosenmuUer's Scholia his words are, " Nomen ->3 autem eadem signifi- catione accipiendum qua (Prov. xxxi.), '^yssra n«i "^txq heus mi fili, mi uterine ! convenitque cum rrriM "33 supra versu septimo." Thus the Rabbi is entirely at issue with Dr. Benisch in his opinion, that the word na has not the same meaning both in the Psalms and Proverbs. Again, we have the learned Rabbi's opinion, that as the words, " Serve the Lord with fear," in the eleventh verse correspond to those against the Lord in the second, so do " kiss the Son" in the twelfth to *' his anointed," also in the second. "Quemadmodum versu prsecedente nrmw rt» tw mrr^ in versu secundo " respondent, ita nunc -onpra re- spondet tic; TppcrVy eodem illo com mate." We could desire no clearer testimony that the Son and the Messiah are identical.

With regard to the second phrase, your correspondent says that the "primary " signification of Ta« is "lose oneself," to " wander," and for this he refers to Gresenius. It is true that in the Lexicon of that eminent scholar, abridged by Dr. Robinson, it is so given, but not in the original by Roediger. There we find ii«, "periit," "interiit,"

184 Correspondence, [April,

given as the primarj meaning, and ** amissus est»" '' Terloren seyn" as the secondary. I will not argue whether a preposition must be men- tally prefixed or not to the word in question, because it seems reallj of very little importance, considering the solemnity of the language used in ver. 12, since those who stray from the right way must be in mani- fest danger of perishing.

Your correspondent says, ** It is not for the translator to decide upon what is meant by a ' pure one.' " This is the business of the com- mentator. But he should recollect that in a certain sense, and perhaps in a very important one, a translator U a commentator, since he affixes a particular meaning to a word and commends it to the reader's atten- tion. What sense Dr. Benisch will himself give to his translation, it is in vain for me to conjecture. Who is this " pure one " whose anger the Psalmist declares is productive of such fatal consequences, and who dis- penses blessings to those who trust in him? To the propounder of the riddle I gladly leave the solution.

Chariton King's^ CheUenhatn, H. P.

Feb. I4tk, 1863.

"PAMPHLETS."

In the /. S. Z. for January last, p. 469, the reviewer of ''Adams on St. Peter" alludes to the early use of new words in that book (1633), and asks, ''Are we wrong in citing under this last head the word 'pamphlets?'" The word was probably not even then in common use, but*it existed at a considerably earlier period. Allow me to refer you to the earliest examples of which I have any note. They are to be found. in the second part of the French Academy, translated from the original of Peter de la Primaudaye, and published in London in 1594. The anonymous translator (J. B.) in his epistle to the reader is com- plaining of the license and corruption of the times, and in particular he laments over some profane and unbelieving author, of whom he says, " And yet this fellow in his life-time, and in the midst of his greatest ruffe, had the press at commandment to publish his lascivious pamphlets, whereby he infected the hearts of many young gentlemen and others with his poisonful platforms of love and divelish discourses of fancies fits; so that their minds were no less possessed with the toyes of his irreligious brain than their chambers and studies were pestered with his lewd and wanton books." A little further on, com- plaints are made about theatres and stage-plays, which the writer says some learned men have termed, " The school of abuse, the school of bawdery, the nest of the devil and sink of all sin ; the chair of pes- tilence, the pomp of the devil, the sovereign place of Satan;" yet, adds he, "This commendation of them hath lately found the press that they are rare exercises of virtue. It were too long to set down the catalogue of those lewd and lascivious books, which have mustered themselves of

1863.] Dr. Davidson's Introduction. 185

late jears in PauFs Chnrcbjard, as chosen soldiers ready to fight under the devil's banner; of which it maj be truly said that they prcTsil no less (if not more) to the upholding of Atheism in this light of the Gospel» than the legend of his Heron of Bordeaux; ELing Arthur, with the rest of that rabble, were of force to maintain popery in the days of ignorance. Wherefore my humble suit is to all such as may by virtue of their authority stay the violent course of Atheism daily spread abroad by these pernicious pamphletSy that they would lay their helping hand for the speedy redress thereof. And as for those that reap the gain of iniquity by the sale of such infectious stuff, oh, what a sweet smelling sacrifice should they offer unto the Lord if they would gather all such hurtful books together, and cause them to pass through the fire in the midst of that yard where now they are so commonly sold. Hereby it would come to pass that the land being purged of so ereat contagion as droppeth oat of the pens of such goddess brains, the Lord would withdraw his heavy hand, which now many ways presseth us sore, the preaching of the Grospel would prevail mightily, as it did in Ephesus after the like sacrifice, and young gentlemen and others would employ good hours upon better studies."

This was written at the very time when Shakespere had begun to publish those plays which are now held in so much estimation.

Q.

DR. DAVIDSON'S INTRODUCTION.

m

In the second volume of Dr. Davidson's Introduction to the Old TestO' nent, p. 338, I am astonished to find the following extraordinary criticism on a point of Hebrew grammar. He is discussing the book of Proverbs, and says, " In ch. xxxi. 1 the word vtfo is not a proper name, because Mto ^ ^no^, ' Lemuel, king of Massa,' is not Hebrew. To make it good Hebrew, i^ should have the article prejixed"

In reply to this I assert that, if Massa be a proper name, the three words quoted are perfectly good Hebrew, and that Dr. Davidson's pro- posed emendation, which I have marked in italics, violates one of the most elementary rules of Hebrew grammar, viz., that a noun in a state of construction cannot take the definite article, the study of Hebrew indeed is at a low ebb with us, and we may well be the laughing-stock of German scholars. For if these things be done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry 7

Believe me. Sir, yours truly.

Trinity College^ Cambridge, W. Aldib Wright.

9th Nov., 1862.

186 Correspondence. [Aprils

DR. HINCKS ON MANETHO.

Will joa kindly permit me to eorrect a vexatioas mistake in my artide on ** The Egyptian Dynasties of Manetho,'' page 367. The expression there quoted as Ptolemy's is not his. He used the equivalent expres- sion, Kwraino -rh fu^ovvicriov, ** Bt the Tsry middle or the nigfaf at Babylooy and he adds that this was five-sixths of an hour bnore the midnight of Alexandria, that being aooording to him the diffSerenee of time between the two cities. Some years ago, I procured extracts from the Almagest, containing Ptolemjr's statements respecting the principal eclipses to which he refers. I could not find the paper containing these extracts when I was preparing my article in last November. I was sure, however, that I recollected the substance of the statement which Ptolemy makes concemiug this (Haitna, vol. i., p. 245); and I fancied that I recollected his precise words. I have since found the paper, and I lose no time in making the necessary correction.

Killyleaght county Down, Edw. Hincks.

2\st February, 1863.

DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE.

Allow me to notice two slight errors in my paper on the " Date of the Apocalypse," in the January number of the /. S. L,

In p. 455, for ** if Irenaeus had prefixed a chronological heading to his MS. of the Apocalypse in a.d. 105," read a.d. 175.

In the note to p. 464, for "in studying the Apocalypse, it is perhaps necessary to avow both a Protestant and Romish bias," for avow read avoid, I am not quite certain that my memory may not have deceived me, in my supposition that the Athenaum was the journal in which I had met with the unfavourable review referred to there.

January 3, 1863. G.

1868.] { 187 )

KOTICES OF BOOKS.

Anecdota SyricLca, Collegit edidit explicuit J. P. N. Land, TheoL Doc Tom. I. luBunt Tabulie xxviiL Lithographies^. Lngduni Batavorum. 1862.

We hail with pleasure, the arrival of this handsome volume. Its editor, a young orientalist of great promise, and already favourably known by his Dissertation upon the Ecclesiastical History of John^ Bishop of Ephesusy in which he was the first to call attention to the great value of the contents of that contemporaneous record, was sent to London in the autumn of 1857, at the expense of the Dutch govern- ment, and continued there nearly a year, occupied in examining the tiMsures of Syriac literature stored up in the British Museum, and in transcribing such manuscripts as seemed to him most worthy of his pains. The three intervening years seem to have been chiefly spent in studying the works with which he was thus enabled to enrich the library of the University of Leyden, and the liberality of the Warner trustees there has now enabled him to give to the world the first in- stalment of the rich harvest which he gathered.

As Dr. Land remarks, it is to the general advantage that the noble eollections which have gradually accumulated at the British Museum should be examined by students of di£krent nations; for as national character differs, that which is highly attractive to the learned of one country, is in danger of being thought of minor interest in another. Whfle, therefore, English scholars have been chiefly interested in theo- logical writings, he claims for the Germans broader views, and a philo- sophical preference for whatever tends to throw light upon the history of civilization in general. But while we allow that there is a certain amount of theoretical truth in Dr. Land's canon, we do not find it borne out by the fticts. We owe to Dr. Cureton the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus, and from a Syriac palimpsest he deciphered the oldest known text, by several centuries, of a considerable portion of the Iliad of Homer. On the other hand we know of no theological publication of modem times which can compete in interest or value with the treatise of TituSj Bishop of Bostra^ or the Didascalia Apostolorum, edited by Dr. De Lagarde. But what is more curious, Dr. Land himself has not struck out into new ground, but followed in the tracks alreadv marked out by others. Attention had already been called to tLe Leges Smadares — ^the most valuable treatise in his present volume — ^by Mr. B. H. Cowper, who in his Analecta Niccena, copied from this very manuscript, mentioned it as a '* curious document'' In the same author's Syrian Miscellanies^ a translation may be found of the chro- nological extracts from Ad. MS. 14,643, of which Dr. Land has now given us the Syriac: while the volume which is to follow next in

188 Notices of Books. [April,

order will contain snch remains of John of Ephesas as have not yet been published, and will therefore only complete Dr. Cureton's labours.

Among the vast wealth however of the British Museum, Dr Land's view of the tendencies of the German mind settled at least his own choice : and thus his Anecdota consist chiefly of works of historical interest, and such especially as throw light upon the fortunes of the Syrians themselves. Besides fragments, therefore, of -other parts of John of Ephesus' history, he has transcribed a volume by the same author containing the lives of oriental saints, the title of which Dr. Cureton had previously given in the preface to his edition of the History, Next follows a Historia Miscellanec^ to the publication of which we look forward with interest : for it contains the Syriac version of the once famous work of Zacharias, Bishop of Mitylene, of which we have more than once heard mention as existing among the Nitrian rnana* scripts: the short chronological record styled "the History of the Chaliphs," but to us most interesting from the notices it contains of the early councils, follows ; then the secular laws ; the maxims of the sage Menander ; and, finally, a few leaves written in the Syro-PaUestinian character, and containing portions of a Psalter. More than a hundred leaves, in all, written in the same character, were brought from Egypt by Dr. Tischendorf in his last two journeys to the East, and have been lent to Dr. Land by the liberality of the Russian Government. They contain two books of Gospels, and some Homilies, and their publication would be of value, not so much from their contents as from the light they might throw upon the dialect spoken in Palestine : the classical Syriac being that of the regions eastward, and Edessa its head- quarters.

In the present volume we have the Syriac text, and a Latin transla- tion of the book of the Chaliphs, the secular laws, the maxims of Menander, and also a brief history of the St. Thomas Christians of Malabar, from a manuscript in the library of the University of Leyden. There is, further, a short excursus upon the "Laws of various nations," ascribed by Dr. Cureton in his Spicilegium to Bardesanes, but which Dr. Land considers, from internal evidence, to have been written by bis disciple Philip. In a second excursus he argues that the extract from Melito was not taken from the Apology of the venerable Bishop of Sardes, but from his treatise De Veritate. For ourselves we own to the greatest doubt as to its being the work of the Bishop at all. Cave pndses Melito as " doctrina clarus," and Tertullian says that the Chris- tians regarded him as a prophet. But after reading the extract in question, we own to a feeling of great relief on finding the author called, in the heading, " Melito the Philosopher ;" whereas in the three extracts expressly ascribed in the titles to the Bishop of Sardes, we think we can discern that " elegans et declamatorium iugenium,'' for which Tertullian again praises him, and of which we can find no trace in this frigid oration. We may add that the early Christians were famous for their knowledge of the Old Testament, and that Melito especially was remarkable for a work in six volumes, containing extracts from the

1863.] Notices of Books. 189

Bible, in the preface of which is that list of its contents which gives ns the earliest knowledge of the sacred canon. Let any one remembering thin read the account of £lisha in p. 44, and we think he will grant that the Melito who wrote this extract had bat a very shallow and second- hand knowledge of the Scriptures : and so of the account of the deluge, — ^the flood of Noah is put in p. 51 on just the same level with a previous '^ flood and wind, when the chosen men were destroyed by a mighty north wind, and the just were left for a demonstration of the tmtb." No Christian wrote this, but some eclectic philosopher, who had at most a very slight knowledge of the Bible, and who might very weli hold a place in the same volume as the Gnostic Bardesanes. For we inust call attention to the fact that the extracts which really belong to the Bishop of Sardes are taken from a very different manuscript.

Next in order we have a most valuable dissertation upon Syriac Palaeography ; containing an account of their manner of writing, the materials they employed, their ink, pens, parchment, paper, etc.; and in which Dr. Land makes it appear probable that the Syrians occasionally made use of quills. We have ourselves seen a copy of the Gospels bnmgbt from Malabar, in which are rough drawings of the four evange- lists, each with his ink-horn hanging from the mouth of some animal, while in his hand he holds a veritable pen, with the feathered part so clearly drawn that mistake is impossible. T^e manuscript is not ancient, hot these things are so often copied from generation to generation, that the drawings may be taken from something of greater antiquity.

We think it just possible then that the Syrians did sometimes perhaps write with quills ; but when Dr. Land goes a step farther, and denies them the use of the reed, we are obliged to halt. Kis words are : — '^ Nee video qua ratione calami usum, dum huic homini abjudi- camns, ejus collegis tribuere cogamnr." We turn therefore to the NomenekUor of Elias Barsinseus, fraudulently published under the name of Thomas a Novaria. In p. 165 we have a list of the imple- ments used by the scribe. Among them we have |i.2LCD> ( i 1 O calamtts scribcBj the scribe's reed, but not a word about quills. We next turn to our own private collections from the BihUotheca Orientalisj and find nothing under the Syriac equivalent for pens, but two passages proving the use of the reed. The first is taken from a Homily upon the LfOrcTs Supper by S. Isaac the Great, a writer of the fifth century,

and will be found in Bib, Or,, i., 220, col. b, as follows : «»AjZ|ij^O|

♦Icn2l1> Y^t-^ 'U^l "(Faith) held out to me the reed of the spirit,

and bade me sign: and I took it and wrote and confessed, This is the body of God.'* The second belongs to the ninth century, being taken from the Monastic History of Thomas of Marga {lb., iii., i., 490, c a.), where speaking of a monk who shortly before his death

saw a wonderful vision, he proceeds : — | Acd)^ t^Aoo 1 1 1 O mO m ^cn^ wOiaZl? )jai IoVm ^ OlA ■ S n? " He took a reedy and wrote

190 Notices of Booh. [April,

npon ihe wall of his cell an aoootunt of the Tision whioh had appoved unto him."

We have also been told that the Nesiorian priest from Oroomiah, who spent a portion of last year in London, very mnoh disliked ihe nse of the qaill, and wrote with a reed. Nor did he approve of our iok^ but preferred lampblack mixed with a solution of gum. Oar own eyes also convinee us that Syriac manuscripts were written with the reed. No quill could continue page after page writing with the same exactness, and with every letter so truly formed, that no printing oould be more easy to read wherever time has spared its ravages. But even more conclusive are the rapid scrawls ofteoi found in the fly4eaveB of manuscripts, and recording the, no doubt, interesting faet to the writer that he once saw, and occasionally that he had even read, the "blessed hook." The lines of these oould only have been made with the reed. And, in short, the interesting, and we may add surprising, fact which Dr. Land has discovered is that the Syrians ever used quills at all.

It is a notion of grammarians that though the Sjrnans read from right to left, yet that they wrote from the top of the page to the bottom, turning the parchment sideways. In proof of this Hoffinann gives a very respectable list of authorities in p. 72, of his Orammar ; and Dr. Land has found a curious confirmation of the idea in a mann* script of the sixth century. One or two Greek words which oocur in the Syriac, are there written vertically instead of horizontally, na if the scribe had been too lazy to turn his parchment round. Upon this subject we should like to know whether the custom was general, or con- fined to one school of calligraphers. Certainly the priest referred to above, from Oroomiah, wrote like an ordinaiy mortal. But the writing of Syriac, espedally in the older characters, was a very slow and laborious process, and probably no manuscripts exist in the world more beautifully and carefully executed than Syriac : and though we should require strong proof to convince us of the general prevalence of this vertical method of writing, yet we readily allow that some families of scribes may have adopted some such practice. In the colophons we frequently find testimony to the difficulty of the scribe's office ; often they speak as if borne down by a sense of utter wearmess, and declare that the sight of the last line fills them with the same delight as ike sight of land gives to the storm-tost sailor. And we remember one copyist who says, '* It was a wise man who said that it is easier to write with stones upon men's backs, than to transcribe the lines of « book."

Of the manuscript in which these vertical specimens of writing occur Dr. Land gives us a lithographed specimen, and we can safely affirm that nothing can be much more beautiful or interesting to a paliBographer than the lithographs with which this book is adorned. Besides the frontispiece, in which are facsimiles of four Syriac manu- scripts belonging to Dr. Lee, of Hartwell House, there are twenty- seven plates executed with great skill, and containing extracts from mofe than one hundred and twenty codices in the British Museum.

1868.] Noiicet of Books. 191

The fiMsimSIes firom HartwdU are interesting as giving ns speeimens of that interiaeed work so fiomiliar to Syriac students, but which Professor "Westwood, in his PaloBOffraphia Sacra Pictoria, declares to be equally charaoterbtie of Anglo-Saxon and Irish manuscripts. It consists of ribbons intertwined in a great variety of intricate patterns, and is some- times delicateLy, but more frequently ooarsely, drawn ; and is almost the sole omaxaeat CTer Ibnnd in Syriac books.

The manuscripts from which Dr. Land has copied his facsimiles «re mostly of an aseertained date, and are therefore a very valuable sud towards fixing the relative period at which others, of which the eolophons have perished, were written. And as time has generally been noost busy with his ravages at the beginning and end of books — fbr^ in the ages of neglect, while their outsides were exposed to dirt and ▼iolenee, their insides were left alone-<-niany of our most valuable manuscripts have lost their titles and endings : but by the aid of these well-execnted lithographs it will be less difficult to arrive at a trust- worthy eonclnsion as to the age to which they may be referred.

Omitting dialectic varieties. Dr. Land has sh^n that there are four chief alphabets in use among Syriac scribes. Of these the first and oldeet is the fistrangelo, probid>ly so called firom being the character in

whicli the gospels were copied, ^A i \ u -^ol Is-^; but gradually

fonafi less diiScult to write were adopted, and a middle^ncient style grew into general use, which in process of time was modified, until in eomparatively modem manuscripts the Maronite or simple character ^nevaiL To the title of Nestorian, as applied to the middle*ancient or *^ Meiooene " style, Dr. Land objects with some reason ; but his words as applied to the drawers up of the short catalogue in the British liusenm are founded upon a mistake. Speaking of a Jacobite lec- tionary, he says, " Minime ut somnkmt catalogi autores (p. 42), cha- laetere antiquo Nestoriano.*' But the authors of the catalogue did not mean, as Dr. Land seems to have concluded, that it was a Nestorian work, or written by a Nestorian scribe, but that it was in the character next in antiquity to the fistrangelo, and technically called Nestorian. Dr. Land calls Attention to the fact that the remnant of Nestorians npoB the lake Oroomiah still use a somewhat similar alphabet, and that the American missionaries have adopted it in their splendid edition of the Scriptures printed there; and to this he thinks the title of Nestorian should be confined. But he also notices that the St. Thomas Christians in Malabar use the same character, and doubtless he is aware that they are not Nestorians but Jacobites.

The Syrians are also in the habit of writing other languages in their own alphabet, just as the Jews use Hebrew letters for all tongues indifferently, and have done so from the time of Maimonides to the ptresent day. They call this Carshun, and though not confined to Arabic, yet firam the prevalence of that language in Asia, we more fire- quently find it so written than any other tongue. Nothing is more common in great libraries than copies of portions of the Scriptures,

192 Notices of Books, [April,

especially Psalters written in doable columns, of which one contains the Peschito, and the other an Arabic translation. But we have also seen in the Bodleian Turkish works written in Syriac characters, and that being now the state language in the Asiatic dominions of Turkey, the priest, mentioned above, from Oroomiah used to write Turkish also in Syriac letters. Of this style of writing Dr. Land says, *' Karsuni- cam Bcripturam quis quando invenerit, et nominis originem nescio." We find, however, jn the preface to the Syriaxi and Arainc New Testament^ edited at Rome, A. 1703, by Faustns Naironius, that that learned Maronite ascribes its invention to a native of Mesopotamia, who finding that the Syriac Christians there were losing their knowledge of their native tongue, owing to the necessity of using Arabic in their business transactions, while they retained the use of their own alphabet, began to affix to their copies of the Scriptures an Arabic version commended to them by the retention of their own venerated characters. From that day this mode of writing has borne his name : and as Gabriel Sionita and the Assemani (BibL Med, Laurent, et Pal. Codd, OaLj p. 51 ; BibL Vat. Codd. Cat, ii. 23) accept this statement, it comes to us at least respectably accredited.

But it is time to proceed to the works, of which both the original and a translation are contained in this volume. Of the principle of attaching such a translation to the Syriac we highly approve, bat regret that we are compelled to find serious fault with its execution. In the present state of Oriental studies, works edited simply in the original tongue can scarcely be regarded as more than materials made available for future use. Probably not a hundred persons have read the very valuable treatises edited with scrupulous exactness by Dr. De Lagarde. But in the present state of Syriac lexicography the labour of translation is very severe, and the qualifications which would suffice for rendering with tolerable accuracy a Greek or Latin author, where every word is explained in lexicons, and every difficult passage buoyed by notes and commentaries, are insidequate when the trUnslator is the first explorer of new ground, and finds in every half-page words unknown to dictionaries. All this we would bear in mind ; but never- theless we feel that Dr. Land has not always taken reasonable pains with his renderings, and especially that he has not a proper respect for the rules of grammar. Mistakes in the meaning of single words we think lightly about ; but Syriac grammar is so exact, and defines so clearly the forms of its rich variety of nouns and adjectives, and the like, that it gives no excuse for its violation or neglect And engaged as Dr. Land is upon a very important work, which must form a part of the library of every Syriac scholar, we trust in his next volume that he will give proofs of a more careful attention to that accuracy which we think we have a right to expect.

To shew that our strictures are not unfounded, we will bring forwatd a few specimens of the inexactness of which we complain. Already then, in the second page, we have the title and first ten lines of the HesCaefQ^rpn of James of Edessa, and in it occur these woids, y^}

•.A

1«68.] Noticei of Booh. 193

licLMli i^jl^i )AjJJZ? )Zal.j.MlD>o \iio\2jf ]<^V<^

^-O %i\nOf^0. They are addressed bj a certain Constantine,

at ivhose request the work was written, to James, and mean, It is thy duty as preeeptor to speak : and that oJF my infirmity of mind, t. e,j of my humUe self^ to hear and receive and understand! Bat Dr. Land Tcaders : — £t tu» (intelligenti») preceptor qui locutus es, et per poten- tiam mentis mea qnce aadivit et recepit et consideravit. This is not the first thing in this short extract which we shoaM render differently from Dr. Lfoid, but we quote it because, giving a wrong meaning

to (/flNi >i>V>, it violates grammar. His rendering, whatever it

may mean, would only be possible if the Syriac read IJsd]^ AsVla,

• Bat let us proceed to the appendix, in which the Syriac text of Dr. Lduid'a works wiD be found. Passing over minor matters we find in pa^ 6 the statement, that Jovinianus gave up Nisibis, and Armenia

with its dependencies ^loioil^ which Dr. Land translates huic man-

daatiy and compares the Talmudic word p^n, mandatum* We will not debate jtm, thou^ its meaning rather is, *' leave or licence given to do anything ;" but Buxtorf does give a passage where he renders it ^' regiA aoandatmn," though we think the meaning is, '^ the king's licence or per- mission;" but will confine oniselves to the Syriac The words are ^*He

gave up ^5ai^ ch^ ^^^...l^SoalO) ]LDyL] ^Q^ oil^ ]% ^^i]: Now we have no hesitation in saying that ^loScTL^ can have nothing

to do with Ol^ a fem. pronoun referring to Armenia. Had the con- atmction been as Dr. Land supposes, the genius of the Syriac language would have required that the pronoun should be repeated; and the

ocribe would have given the good Syriac word OIJ, OO^N, instead of searching the Talmud for an exotic The word can only be a dative after the verb to give, and must, therefore, be an equivalent for the

other dative ] ■ mj^N put immediately after the verb. And this landa us on safe ground at once ; ^So3ai is the Persian evil demon

Ahrimanes, — The sting of the sentence is in its tail. A Christian emperor gives up Christian towns to the Persians, to Ahriman. Con- stantly we find Uie writers of those days regard the straggle between the Itomans and the Persians as a personal strife between the true and the false God. We grant that Ahriman is more frequently written

^loJcn^, but the Syrians add on or omit an olaph without scruple;

and we remember having at least once met with the form ^lo5oi, in Assan, Act Mart., i., 228, 1, 2.

In page 19 we have an account of the council of Gangra, which among ol^^er things condemned those who forbade the use of meats. Dr. Land (page 118) renders their canon as follows: ^'Abillo jam tempore quem Deus Aaronem sacerdotum (? sacerdotem) constituit, qm

N«W SBRIBS. — VOL. 111., NO. V. O

194 ' Notices of Bools^ [Aprils

mantt dextra et nuKxilla et humilitate gregem pavit, et ad Eli saoerdoteia usque, sacerdotes Israelis carnibus vescebantur/' Surely if Aaron fed his flock with his right hand, he might have spared them the jaw : and if he plentifallj used both hand and jaw, we do not think that they would have said that he fed them with humility. Nor can we call to mind any part of Scripture where Aaron is said to have fed n flock at all : and if he had, we do not see what bearing his feeding with his right hand and jaw could have upon the question of eating meat It may seem incredible that instead of these extraordinary words the Syriac simply quotes Deut. xviii. 3. It is true .that Dr.

liand makes two alterations, chfinging (1 iV^iV into |J..aIiQ.A.iO, and

(i6^QJA into IZcUuJA. The former be gives as an emendation, the lat- ter was probably a lapsus calami, writing a familiar for an unfamiliar word. The passage therefore really means : " From the time that God aligned to Aaron the high priest the right shoulder, the cheek, and the maw, to the days of £li the priest, the priests of Israel ate flesh/ ^

We must acknowledge on Dr. Land's behalf that iAjOI \ occurs in no

lexicon ; but in spite of the broader views of the Germans, we might reasonably expect a knowledge of the Pentateuch in a Syriac scholar.

We have a private canon of our own, but founded upon a very inde induction, that emendations of the text are a confession that the editor does not understand what the author wrote. How much bad Greek and worse Latin we shoald have been spared, had editors instead of condemning the author distrusted themselvtot Except obvious mistakes of spelling, we utterly disbelieve in all corrections. Without going quite so far as Dr. De Lagarde, who, if he finds a letter unfinished in the original, mutilates the type so as exactly to represent it, wer would nevertheless say to every translator, If your version requires, any emendation of the text, depend upon it your version is wroQ^« And to editors we would give similar advice. If you cannot understand what the manuscripts give you, the faalt lies not in them, but in your own muddled brains. However, we grant that Dr. Land is not often* troubled with this demon of emendation, but that his Syriac text may be well and accurately done.

We may notice, however, one other instance. In page 65 of the

Appendix, Dr. Land alters <4-^l ^^^ %f^\/\\0: but «4-^^^ ^^ & very dubious word. It may exist, but we defer our belief in its exist- ence until proof thereof is adduced. For the present we are contented

with the strong opinion that the Syrians used for it theEttaph. «5^r AV)^

But no emendation is necessary. Menander in the place in question recommends any father who has a worthless son to make a gladiator of him. *' Put sword and knife in his hand, and pray that he may sooni get killed." Now when the empire became Christian all persons con- nected with the theatre, the stadium, and the hippodrome, became infames: they lost their civil rights, and could not even make a will: Numerous proofs of this occur in the Leges Scecvlares. Now we can-

1868.] Notices of Books, 195

not flee any reason why Menander may not have said, If thy son turn OQt andacious, and an athlete ; and daring and a thief. We have four words in the absolute state, of which the first and third are adjectives of the same meaning, bold, daring ; while the second and fourth are substantives, and shew what this daring leads on to. To introduce a participle into the second place spoils the symmetry of the whole sen- tence, nor would it mean nequam, but exsecratus, makdictus — some- thing suffered from others, and not a bad quality or habit in yourself. Menander then recommends that if the son take to the stadium — ^to the prize-ring — his considerate father, afraid of the discredit which the son may bring upon him, should encourage him to become a gladiator at once, and so ensure an early deliverance from him. We fully, after this, assent to Dr. Land's opinion that Menander was not a Christian.

It is in the translation of this sage Menander that we most fre- quently find reason to dissent from Dr, Land's version. The Syriac is by no means easy, but its difficulty chiefly consists in the translator having somewhat slavishly followed the order of the Greek originaL Put his maxims back into Greek, and they become comparatively easy. We will give an instance. At the foot of p. 65 is a passage which Dr. Land translates : Quando cibi venter plenus est, abi. Attamen decora tibi non est, ut canes edunt, ventris plenitas. The Syriac of the last

sentence is : <]£D^y 6t\iL ]n\^\ AIIjuO*) ^ ]nn> P ^;r>. Now |nn# is the participle of a verb signifying to permit, give leaver In Epbr. i. 280, fienedictas renders \\iL irUemperantia. These, how- ever, are trifles : bat to render |n\*^\ A\ i *^| as dogs eat, is to set all rules of grammar and construction at nought. A\ t *^1 is a &m.

pass, part., ]*^\H\ is the dative of the agent after a passive verb ;

and the words can only mean eaten by dogs. Had the passage been originally written in Syriac, we should have felt uncertain trhat to do with these words, but in a translation from the Greek we know that Ibey are only an awkward way of rendering icvvohrjicro^^ a poetical

epithet of \\iL ; and thus the whole passage means : When thy

stomach is frdi, depart ; but thy dog-begnawed insatiableness of appe- tite will not let thee. In other words, thy gluttony is as insatiable as if a pack of dogs were gnawing at thy maw.

The same indifference to the minutiis of grammar is seen in p.. 69. Dr. Land translates a passage there : Ab adulterio omnino sbstine ; quare turpia et flagitosa bona emere vis ? The Syriac is :

^5q!)OZ y^'yio U;;CO ]lio; loti^ 1^^?) and staggered by hav- ing to render lllo? by honOj Dr. Land appends a note, saying that it

signifies pretia vel priemia. But pretia and prsemia are by no means the same thing. Grant that in paying a trader his price^ we also give him a premium upon his dishonesty, still the two aspects of the same

o2

196 Notices of Books. [April,

transaction are expressed by different wordS| and t-LlD; does signify

pricej bat does not signify reward. " To buy a price " is not sense, nor can it refer, as Dr. Land thinks, to the crael punishments which were the rewards in ancient time of adultery, because the word does not

signify reward. But the Syriac is clear. The verb \^\ requires }

after it, and it is only because } requires the same construction as tho

Latin utj that you can have }q1oZ in the indefinite tensc^The transla- tion is : Why wish to buy rotten and polluted waters ? And a proof that waters is an ordinary euphemism for adultery, one quotation may suffice, ProT. ix. 17.

We shall content ourselves with one passage more. In page 72,

we read: ]Zo;;2> |/o>\0 p;..^«JLo, which Dr. Land renders, ovea

audaces, reddit nutricatio. He further gives a learned note to prove that IZo JbO might mean in Arabic the giving suck : but he has not

given any proofs from natural history of so remarkable a phenomenon as that giving suck makes ewes audacious. We recommend the subject, however, to the Carolinians, whom Mr. Russell in his Diary describes as ransacking nature for the names of ferocious animals with which Xo adorn their regiments ; why not call one of the fiercest '^ The sackliBg

ewes ?" Now, whatever /0«So may be in Arabic, it is a common word

enough in Syriac. It occurs, for instance, in the Epistle of St'James. Asseman {B, 0., i., 113), renders it contradictio, and we venture to suggest that the passage means, contradiction irritates sheep ; or in the vernacular, contradiction would irritate a lamb. If Dr. Land will

search in Proverbs for what Solomon says of lA^^ ^^)> ^ word from

the same root f^, he will own that the ancients did dislike being;

contradicted ; for better, he says, it is to sit alone on the comer of the roof than to dwell with a contradictory woman ; for she is as bad atf the continual dripping of water through the roof on a wintry day.

We have often noticed in Dr. Land this tendency to neglect the obvious for the obscure. Already we have had ^ioSci, and in page 9, we read: ]lo9 o] \La *iinom ^^]^fc^ Now^.j.r)afiD is even a more common word than (Zo Jk), being the plural contract

form of paCD, a branchy and we will own that we should have been content with rendering the passage, ashes made from branches of the

olive or palm. Not so Dr. Land : he sees in - ^*^r^m ^{^^ Greek woitl

9viaj^ a fig-tree. True, the Syriac has a word of its own hr fig-tree,'

namely, |ZZ; and captious-minded people might object that it is very improbable that the ashes of so foul-smelling a plant as the fig should be used in a religious rite along with those of the olive and palm \ but we

1863.] Notices of Book$. 197

must own ourselves to a feeling of admiration at the ingeuiottsness of the rendering.

We make these remarks unwillinglj, and through no desire to depreciate Dr. Land's labours; on the contrary, we consider his Aneedota a most valuable addition to our stock of Syriac literature, and ahould greatly regret to find in the succeeding volumes the same marks of carelessness as are visible in that which we have now before us. We axe quite aware that Dr. Land has no easy task ; it is much the same as if any one had to translate for the first time the Tims&us or Menander, with the aid of Schleusuer's Thesaurus only. Or rather worse : for Schleusuer does give all the words in the Septuagint with satisfactory explanations, while Ca&tell not only omits numerous words altogether^ but in all difficult passages contents himself with Gabriel Sionita's ren* deringfl, which, after a careful study of the Peshito, we are bound to say are habitually wrong, and only accidentally and occasionally right. I^othing, therefore, that we have said militates against the expression of our honest conviction that Dr. Land has rendered a great service to Syriac scholars ; we may also add that typographical errors in the Syriac are few, though fairly abundant in the Latin ; but we do consider that to make him a skilful and competent editor he stands in need of a somewhat more extensive course of Syriac reading. Had he, for inatmiiAA^ read the Pentateuch with an interleaved lexicon at his side,

to say nothing of^A^OI \ he never could have written in p. 64 "ai\|

statu simplici nusqnam inveni;" for he would have found wii^QJ n^|,

X>eut. xxxii. 12; ib. 21, OlX) )1q, while other writers would have

given him, tuque cut nauseam^ such phrases as OlXj |J; for o ^cov ;

^CTl^l CTL^l ; ^OD CTl^l, etc.

We would especially notice the ^' Secular Laws " as worthy of an attentive perusal. It is probably not so old as Dr. Land imagines ; for the volume fitmi which it is copied is made up of portions ^ four di£Eerent manuscripts, and we observe that Mr. Cowper considers that of these only one belongs to the sixth century (Anal, Nieam.^ iv.) It is, however, highly interesting, and throws great light upon the legal relations and every day life of the Aramaic subjects of Rome. The mutual rights of husband and wife, parent and child, freeman and slave, are clearly set out, and after comparing it with the Nomo-canon of Bar*HebnBU9, we find this distinctive difference, that Bar-Hebrssus's wotk is a digest of such ecclesiastical canons chiefly as affected civil rightH, while the present treatise is occupied with the rescripts of the Bioroan emperors. Leave is occasionally given to appear before the bishop or clergy, as a cheaper process for some legal act than applica* tion to the civil courts, but otiierwise no reference is made to them. As these laws are adapted to the use of the Syrians, they contain much incidental information concerning their habits, and thereby throw light upon passages of Holy Scripture. St. Paul's command to the bishop to be the husband of one wife is illustrated by several allusions to poly*

198 Notices of Books. [April,

• ... . -

gamy as a still existing institution, especially in the form of an inferior wife with no dower or marriage contract, but with her position protected by law, and her children legitimate and entitled to inherit. We find also excellent laws about debts, including a " statute of limitation," and what struck us as very curious, an account of the legal rights* of the owners of '' flats." It is amusing to find how utterly unintelligible these flats are to Dr. Land, who, in a note, p. 193, wonderingly asks, How can the stories of the same building belong to different owners ? Nor can he imagine such a state of things possible except where the houses were built on the side of a hill, so that the stories could face different ways, and each owner enter from the street. Such houses we remember having seen in Leith-walk, Edinburgh. The mystery of a ** common stair," with its Scotch correlatives of a " main-door " and a " self-contained " house, are eridently things with which Dr. Land \b unacquainted, and they are only recently being brought to the know- ledge of English people by Victoria Street, Westminster, and the colo- nies of poor industrials in Bethnal Green. Had he, however, visited Vienna, he would have found the system flourishing in its utmost vigour, and we remember being told of a house there which contained more than two thousand dwellers under its roof, and probably was owned by three or fourscore people, while the massive pile of buildings on the top of the mound at Edinburgh, recently, we believe, destroyed by fire, did not furnish accommodation probably for many more than half that number, and had proportionately fewer owners.

In house property, therefore, the maxim does not always hold good, that Cujus est solum, ejus est cnlum : for if a man build a house in ^ats he may sell each one separatelyi and the mutual rights of the owners are regulated by established legal usages, and the obligation made compulsory of each one maintaining his flat in substantial repair. It is very curious to find the same customs existing in the for East, but we can easily understand that in the walled frontier towns, such aa Dara and Nisibis, space was precious, and that necessity soon invented means of adapting their lofty habitations to the means of the many who needed a modest dwelling. What strikes us as distinctive is, that the law not only gave the owner of the lowermost portion power to repiuf the superincumbent stories, if after legal notice the owners neglected so to do, and could recover principal and interest of the expenses so incurred ; but that the upper stories were compelled to contribute a fixed proportion to the repairs of the ground-floor. Why was this ? Were the foundations so weak that constant repairs were necessary, and the expense so heavy that without such contributions no one would be found to accept the ownership of a freehold so burdened ? Or were they tenanted as the cellars of Liverpool once were by the Irish of those days, who whatever they might possess, were quite sure to be utterly destitute of capital ?

But it is time to draw our remarks to an end, and we will, there- fore, content ourselves with one more extract from this interesting buok. It refers .to the question so eagerly debated by some in the

1863,] Notices of Booh. 199

preseni day, of the propriety of marriage with a deceased wife's sister* We give it for what it is worth, reminding the reader that the treatise eon tains only secular laws, and not those founded on the Canons of conncils, and confessing our ignorance as to the amount of illustrative matter that might he found in the works of the later Roman lawyers upon the Pandects of Justinian. The passage occurs in p. 57 of the Appendix, and is as follows :

" The laws forhid a man to marry his brother's wife, and a widow may not marry her husband's brother ; nor again may a man whose wife is dead marry his deceased wife's sister, thereby marrying two sisters. And these things the laws decreed because of the wicked acts perpetrated by many under the inflnence of Inst ; as, for instance, there was a man who was in love with his brother's wife, and the two conspired ajs^ainst the husband, and murdered him. And a woman, again, was in love with her husband's brother, and the two conspired against him and murdered him. And, again, a man was in love with hn wife's sister, and the two conspired, and from envy murdered the wife f and a woman, again, was in love with her sister's husband, and they mnrderea her sister. Because of such wickedness, the law put an end to marriages of this kind, and commanded as to all such as were guilty of them without special permission from the emperor, that their children and such of their relatives as assented to the marriage, should be unable to inherit their property. But in ease there have been no previous fraud or wickedness, and the marriage be snitable, then shall the man present a petition to the emperor, and by his com- mand he may take as wife the relict of his deceased brother, or his deceased wife's sister, as the case may be, and by virtue of the emperor's rescript the Children will inherit."

With this extract we conclude our remarks, and trust that before bng we shall be able to welcome the second volume of Dr. Land's Anecdotay in which he promises to give us such remains of John of £phe8U8 as stiU remain unpublished. R. P. Smith.

The Principles of Divine Service; an inquiry concerning the true man- ner of understanding and using the order for Morning and Evening Prayer, and for the administration qf the Holy Communion in the English Church. By the Rev. Philip Freeman, M.A., Vicar of Thorventon, Prebendary of Exeter, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Exeter. Part XL Oxford and Loudon : J. H. and James Parker.

It has been a very common thing of late years for men of reading and apparent learning to bring together large arrays of quotations from authors known better by name than by perusal, and it has been consi- dered sufficient for the support of a theoi'y to shew that it has been held by writers of credit. One part would thus betake itself to the Fathers, another to the Reformers, a third to the English divines of the seven- teenth century, a fourth to the Puritans, but in all cases we found the' same disposition to rely upon mere authority and the same absence of original and continuous thought. Such, however, is not the method pursued by Mr. Freeman in the work above mentioned, and whatever be the views of his readers, whether they agree or disagree with his opinions, every one of them must give him credit, not only for laborious

SCO Notices of. Books, [Afwil,

0tttdy and exteoBiye reading, but ako for still more laborious and eon* tinuous thought.

The work is ushered in by an introduction of a quasi-historical nature, which traces the Holy Eucharist first through the non-eontro- Tcrsial period of one thousand years, and then through the controversial period of eight hundred years up to the present day, the terms contro- versial and non-controversial being applied with regard to the existence or non-existence of controversies respecting it. To Wickliffe is aacribed the honour of first reviving the ancient doctrine after its obscuration by the Church of Rome, and this ancient doctrine Mr. Freeman conceives to be unmistakeably embodied in the formularies of the Church of England. But these questions do not fall so pn^rly within the pro- vince of The Journal of Sacred Literature^ and we, therefore, dismiss them briefly, and hasten to remark upon matters of interest to those who are engaged in the scientific elucidation of the Scriptures rather than in controversial theology.

And here we find a great deal, that is either new or unusual, and very interesting. The first chapter opens with remarks upon the im- portance of a knowledge of the ancient laws of sacrifice in order pro- perly to understand the Eucharist. And here the question of sacrifice is treated, as it ought always to be, inductively and very fully. If we were disposed to be critical, we should perhaps say, that in our opinion, enough stress was not laid upon the fact that the offerer of the sacrifice was considered as dying, although it was the victim that really did die, while other points, which to us appear of less importance, are more strongly insisted upon. From the Latin words immolare^ indicating the placing the salted meat upon the victim's head, and mactare (from manctu8-magi8 auctus) '^ to enrich a crown with the addition of wine," which are used to represent the whole sacrificial ceremony, joined with the use of similar rites under the Levitical law, it is inferred that the victim was offered b^ means of the bread and unne, and hence that our Lord offered himself by means of the bread and wine at the Last Supper for the sacrifice, which was to be consummated on the next day.

The Patriarchal and Levitical sacrifices are gone through in order from a liturgical point of view, and shewn to point to the one sacrifice of Christ in various ways. The shew-bread is brought into connexion with the bread of the Eucharist in a manner which is new to us, and which is well deserving of consideration. From the etiSdCt of the Mosaie sacrifices a theory of the '^ absolving and retaining powers of the min- isters of the church " is deduced, wUch we shall give in Mr. Freeman's own words :

^' The scriptural language runs throughout upon the ideas (^ ' fasten- ing and unfastening;' which seems always, from the mentioning of keys, to refer to a ' door.' This is countersigned by the sin-offering ritual, which so emphatically brought the ofierer to the door^ and there committed him to other means, to burnt offerings and peace ofierings, for his admission to the holiest place. And since this door lay awfully between the kingdom of God and of Satan, the throwing it open to any

1«63.] Notices of Books. 201

giTcn pencm was' to ' onlock ' also, as far as he was concerned^ the gates of hell, and to let him go free from thence. Hence the action is called a ^ binding and loosening ' as of a prison or chains ; literally ' leaiing tied ' or ^ untying.' . . . We are somewhat helped towards the recognition, if not the conception of this, by observing that the Mosaic rites did certainly remove some effects of sin, while it left others nntouched* It was apparently from not understanding this point that the church of the middle ages was driven to define the proper function of absolution, as distinguished from that of the sacra- ments, to be the forgiveness of certain kinds of sins, instead of — ^what was certainly the ancient doctrine^the remission, sufficiently for ad- mittance to the means of grace, of all kinds of sin, if duly repented of."

In Chapter II. we find a discussion of the disquisition upon the primitive form of Liturgy, and this is to our mind the most interesting and novel portion of the work, nor is it the less so from its bearing upon the controversy upon the '^ Chronology of our Lord's last Pass- over," which has occupied so much space of late in our pages. Pre- mising that we may be pretty sure that there would be some kind of continuity between the forms of the elder and newer dispensations, Mr. Freeman states that there is good reason for believing that such a rite was in practical use among the Jews of that day, and that it xeally furnished the basis and ruled the structure of the Eucharistic institution. Although the seventh day had been more or less an institution of the old world, yet a stricter observance of it was enjoined after the Exodus, so that it formed a weekly^ as the Passover was the yearly memorial of it, bearing the same relation to the Passover as Christian Sundays do to Easter-day.

The Jews appear also to have used certain " graces " at their meals, and no doubt in feeding the multitudes our Lord elevated the cuatomaiy ^^ grace " of the Jews into an instrument of extraordinary benediction. But on the eve of every Sabbath the ordinary '* grace " rose to the dignity of a domestic sacrifice. Mr. Freeman now quotes firom ** The Book of Religious Ceremonies and prayers of the Jews, as practised in their synagogues and families on all occasions," translated from the Hebrew by Gamaliel Ben Pedakzur. ** On that occasion, at supper, the master of the family says grace with a cup of tvine in his right hand," (cf. Hab. ii. 16,) " and his left resting on two loaves of bread covered with a napkin." The two loaves are thus placed on the Sabbath morning also. After the supper they sing certain songs of praise. These Mr. Freeman connects, not oidy with the manna, hot the shew-bread, and considers the ceremony as a weekly act of Passover memorial reception. He quotes at length the ritual in use, which refers both to the Exodus and the covenant, and also on festivals to the " Anointed Messiah, the son of David."

Here, however, comes something in which we cannot think Mr, Freeman is correct. He says that our Lord '^ anticipated by one day the castomary action of the Sabbath and Passover eve." This would place him in exactly the same position of difficulty as those who hold

202 Notices of Books. - [April,

Chat our Lord for no intelligible reason anticipated the proper time for eating the Passover. But there is no need of any such supposition. For the Passover itself then fell on what would have been the eve of an ordinary Sabbath, and, consequently, if the eve service was to have any place at all, it must have been thrown back to the preceding day, when the last supper actually did take place.

But this household service was not all. There was and is a regular synagogue service for the Sabbath eve, in which the reader consecrates and tastes a cup of wine, just as the master of the family does in the Passover ritual. This service Mr. Freeman gives at length, and con- tends that here we have, (1) '^ the basis of our Lord's entire action and discourse at the last supper, and (2), the scheme or framework upon which the Liturgy of the church, following in the track of Christ's iGbction, was constructed."

Mr. Freeman takes St. John for his primary g^ide, and understands the " preparation ** of the Passover, spoken of by the first three Crospels, to imply that the Apostles made all requisite preparations for the so- lemnity of the next day. But the fact of our Lord and his Apostles meeting for a supper on that evening presents a difficulty, which Mr. Freeman attempts to conquer by supposing that the Pesachim or paschal offerings over and above the lamb, might be sacrificed and eaten before the lamb, a supposition in which we cannot agree with him, and against the antecedent improbability of which he does not offer a particle of evidence. But he does bring forward evidence to shew why our Lord andJiis Apostles, more than other persons, would be likely to have a supper on that evening, ^' For it is a curious &ct, that, whereas among the Jews of Judea it was customary to continue work until noon on the day of killing the Passo^ser, the OcUHeans Were prohibited (Beth Shammar in Pesachim iv. 5) by their doctors from working on the evening before, and made that too a part of the festival. It was, therefore, " feria " or holyday, already with them, and nothing was more natural than that they should usher it in with a feast.

Although, therefore, we do not agree with Mr. Freeman in sup- posing that one of the Pesachim formed a component part of the last supper, yet there is nothing to prevent an ordinary peace-offering from having been offered, and being then eaten. Or the supper may have been entirely of a vegetable nature, a supposition which the silence of the Evangelists, as regards its materials, inclines us rather to favour. In either case the bread would be leavened, as in all eucharistic peace- offerings, and certain it is that the Eucharist was celebrated primitively as it still is in the East, in leavened bread. " This leavened bread was traditionally called by the name of * Bread of Thanksgiving or of Eucharist,' " (R. Levi ap. Patrick in Lev. vii. 12.) This supper, wo should think, would probably have preceded the search for and removal of leaven.

And what more natural than that Galileans and probably other strangers should meet together to identify themselves as it were as one

1863.} NoHceB of Books. 208

family the evening before 'the paechal celebratioD, and bold a sol^a paschal-eve service, whether with or without a peace-offering? This would probably be the last meal eaten with leaven^ and would find a parallel in the modem carnival before the ascetic season of Lent. But this is rather an illustration than an argument, whereas the facts brought forward — we imagine, for the first time — ^by Mr. Freeman, taken together with the unanimous testimony of the e(Mrfy fathers, such as Hippolytus, ApoUinarius, and Clement of Alexandria, followed by such men as Peter of Alexandria and Athanasius, are arguments of very considerable force towards shewing that the last supper was not a paschal, but a paschal-eve selemnity.

Every part of the ancient Liturgies is traced to its prototype in the Jewish Sabbath-eve seryio6, and reasons are given fi>r many of the variations which are found in the different Liturgies. Reasons are given for thinking that the Eucharistic office which Augustine intro- duced from the south of France into Kent was not the Roman, but the French variety of the Cassianic or Leonine rite. But that of the Mid* land. Western and Northern regions, appears to have been distinct from this, and closely related to the Epherine Liturgy lately discovered, which Mr. Freeman traces to St. Paul. And St. raul appears to have iuted through the agency of Aristobulus, whose household is saluted in Roman xri. 10, and who is stated in the Greek Menna (Saints'-day Calendar), March 15, to *^ have accompanied St. Paul as bis minister in his preaching throughout the world, and to have been by him sent to Britain as a bishop, where he founded churches and suffered martyr- douL*' A totally independent witness, the Welsh Friars, gives the same account, which is extracted by Archdeacon Williams in his Ecelesiasticai History of the Cymry, According to them. Elan, the blessed (or Saint), first brought the faith in Christ into this island firom Some, where he had been imprisoned. Three Jews are named who accompanied him, but the fourth was '^ a man of Italy, by name Arvrystle *' or Aristobulus, who appears to have been at the head of the mission, and was called '^ the spiritual instructor of Blan.'* This gives the clue to the diocesan variations in the Liturgy. Strange to say, the use of Samm ends with a thanksgiving which ^' accords almost word for word with that of an obscure Mesopotamian Liturgy, ascribed to St. Manitus, of the fifth century." This " probably reached us through Theodore of Tarsus, an early successor of Augustine in the see of Canterbury."

The work ends with a dissertation " on the structure and signifi- cance of the order for the Holy Communion, with which our limited 8fpace does not allow us to follow Mr. Freeman. Neither can we enter into his note at the end, on the various views entertained by divines of fhe Church of England as to the nature of the divine presence in the Eucharist. These things do not fall so properly within the sphere of The Journal of Sacred Literature, as the questions which we have endea- voured to discuss with, or given account of from, Mr. Freeman. We have not pennittcd the fact that he is a decidedly high churchman to

204 Notices of Booh. [April,

weigh with us, either for the better or the worse, for an iostant, but have endeayottred to keep in yiew simply and plainly the scientific yalae of his yolume. And we most sincerely hope that those who differ from him in religions yiews will not be repelled from entering upon the pemsal of his reallj remarkable work. We desire to belong to no party, but honestly and sincerely to draw attention to the matters of interest and utility brought forward by men of all parties, and in this point of yiew we beg most heartily to recommend Mr. Freeman's book to the perusal of all our readers, none of whom can fail to gain a great deal from it, whether they agree much or little with the peeuUar opi- nions of its author.

Mtscellaneous Eksfdys^ Critical and TheologieaiL By the Rev. Williau KiBKUB, LL.B. London : Longmans.

Thesb essays are, as the title states, '* miscellaneous," and some of of them scarcely come within the proyince of this Journal, but the yolume is so noticeable on several accounts that we will rapidly indi* cate its contents and aims. Some of the articles have been published in another form, and they are on a variety of topics, but they all seem designed bv the author to group around the one entitled ^^£vaa« gelicalism, which is the key-stone of the whole structure. The form of Christianity, commonly known as '* Evangelicalism," our author seems to consider the foe of happiness in ordinary life, of profound phi- losophy, of genuine science and history, of ecclesiastical order, and even of doctrinal orthodoxy. Of course, if he has misunderstood '* Evan- gelicalism," his strictures will be at least thrown away, but the air of candour which the book displays in many of its details, leads us to hope that Mr. Kirkus will not refuse to own his mistake. He seems to think that a form of Christianity, which makes a special appeal to '* the million," may best be judged by means of publications which are meant for the many. Jience, we suppose, it is that he dwells so em- phatically upon certain popular tracts and hymns. Puritanic gloom as he views it, is rebuked in the essays upon Mr. Charles Dickens ; its traditionalism in that on Mr. Mansel's ^* New Defence of the Faith ;" its want of courage in that on the *^ Morality of Heligious Controversy ;" its irregularities and disorder in the one upon the ^^ Book of Common Prayer ;" its want of plan and practical effect in those upon ^' Pulpit Fortune Tellers " and '* Preaching;" and we suppose its want of criti- cism in the one upon " Ecclesiastes." This is at least a formidable bill of indictment, " Guilty or not guilty."

The author tries to prove that many dissenters in practice are so, not because of their objections to the Liturgy and Episcopacy, nor because of a dislike of culture and learning. He owns that noncon- formist liberty is often another name for bondage or anarchy. His idea clearly is that the Church of England cannot fulfil her mission till she is more free of the civil power.

We manifestly cannot criticise such a work in these pages. We

1863.] Notices tf Books. 205

ean say that it ia exoeedinglj clever and well written, and that if its author is severe, he is very impartial in his strictures. Such a book, however it may be regarded, must be read and thought about.

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. Part I. Abraham to SamueL By Arthur Penrhtn Stanley, D.D., etc. With Maps and Plans. London : Murray. 1863.

We regret to postpone our review of this work, which is too important to be dismissed with a short notice. It is written with great freedom, in a charming style, and is generally a most attractive book. We are glad to find that notwithstanding his manifest tendencies in a certain direction, the tone of the reverend author is highly commendable, and he never betrays the least symptom of that cynicism which ^* liberal critics " are as liable to as other people. By some the volume will be regarded as an admirable commentary on the Apostolic saying that '* All Smptnre given by inspiration of God is profitable ;" but others will see in it many things open to serious objection. In a literary point of view the lectures will gratify many general readers ; but we must refrain fitnn saying that their critical conclusions are always in harmony with our own, for they are not. We hope to be able to give a candid and &ir appreciation of the work from a competent pen, in our next number.

Ulrich von Htdten; Imperial Poet and Orator , the Oreat Knightly Reformer of the Sixteenth Century. Translated from Chauffour- Kestner^s Etudes sur Us Riformateurs du l%me si^cle^ by Archibald Young, Esq., Advocate. Edinburgh : T. Clark. 1863.

This is the life of a very brave man ; one of those men whose examples our own age greatly needs. He represents the political side of the German Reformation, as Luther represents its theological side. He i^ipeared in an age when forms and symbols had taken the place of realities, when in the Church and in common life men cared more to seem good than to be good. Very early in life he gave unmistakeable signs of that courage, without which even virtue herself is too weak to do the world any genuine service. When he was only sixteen years old, he fled from the Abbey of Fulda, braving all dangers, unmoved bj the commands of his father and the sorrow of his mother, because the loyalty of his nature '* forbade him to sacrifice the instinctive dictates of his conscience either to ambition or fear, or to the natural affectbuB which were always so strong in his heart." His parents were never thoroughly reconciled to him for his desertion of the monastic hie; and the' complaint of his father is only too significant of the Btaadard by which that age was content to judge of all worth : '* He must be Doctor, or at least Master or Bachelor of Laws, or else he is nothing. They don't ask what a man is really worth, but what he is. Fortune, title, are everything, virtue nothing." This is unfortunately always the sign of utter corruption. The brave knight, Ulrich yon Hutten, cared very little for appearances to which there were no corre- sponding realities. He has been charged with rashness, with a too reekless haste in combating the evils, theoretical and practical, by

20& ffoticesqf Books. [Aprilj

^hich his country and age were affected. Perhajw he deseryee this reproach, if it be one. In trath very few victories have been won by extreme prudence ; and strong-hearted men have an aversion amounting almost to contempt for that discretion which is the better part of valour. It is scarcely possible to find in history two characters more strongly contrasted than Ulrich von Hutten and Erasmus^ The former was bold in speech and bolder still in deeds. The latter was a scholar, whose stately measured words were of a kind, notwithstanding all their prudence, to set on fire the hearts of men. But he himself was a mean and sneaking coward, whose words and deeds were wholly irreconcile- able, and who having proved the diseased condition of his times, refused to cure it. The Church, journeying from Jerusalem to Jericho, had fallen among thieves, who had wounded her and lefb her half dead. Erasmus knew the thieves, and he knew the Church, and he knew the wounds she had received and what could heal them, and he came and looked upon her, and — passed by on the other side. Ulrich von Hutten, with no scholarship that could be compared with that of Erasmus, had a genuine honesty and a manly courage, which gave him a name in history that will surely be remembered when all the mere talkers and theorizers are forgotten. In his last days, lonely, poor, persecuted, the scholar would not know him. He begged Hutten not to visit him, if it was not absolutely necessary for him to do so. So do men refuse to receive angels, and take to their hearts those that are not angels.

Every biography like this is of the utmost service to ourselves. We have no lack of wisdom, but we are in the deepest need of courage and utter manliness. The brave knight, no less than the devout divine, is needed in every crisis of the Church's history, in every age of reformation and new life.

L(fe Eternal. From the French of M. Ernest Nayille, late Professor of Philosophy in the University of Geneva. Translated by spedal permission. London : W. H. Dalton. 1863.

M. Ernest Nayille can have little guessed what he was doing whea he gave special permission to the translator of these lectures to present them in so barbarously mutilated a form to the English nation. There is probably no translation in the English language worse than this. It is difficult to conceive how one could be made worse. French, lectures are at the best but tedious reading; their style is to an Englishman in the highest degree irritating ; they are full of questions and exclamations, and their very neatness and prettiness is a kind of effeminacy or foppery of literature. Even from such admirable lecturea as M. Cousin's these beautiful blemishes are not wholly absent. But French lectures with absolutely nothing in them worth hearing, are like a well-dressed fop, who in fact has become his clothes, and who has nothing in himself that can possibly divert your attention from his unimpeachable boots and gloves. We scarcely mean that in these lectures of M. Naville there is absolutely nothing ; and their real value is certainly lessened or concealed in tlie English translation. For what

1868.] Notices of Books^ 207

sra we to understand, for instance, by ''.TlioBe who in tbeir deep' and earnest study have seen the light of the Eternal Verb beam forth to their view?'' But as lectures '^delivered to an audience consisting of about a thousand men of all classes of society, in the winter of 1859 and 1860 at Geneva, afterwards repeated at Lausanne, under similar circumstances, since then widely circulated in print, having realized a sale of soine thousand copies in the short space of a few months, and having been read with perhaps as much interest as they were listened to,'' they are very disappointing. The questions, " what is revelation," aiid ^^ what is eternal life," may be said to be the questions of the present day. The latter, M. Naville's lectures are meant to answer.' They can scaroely be said to answer it at all with any approach to completeness ; though in the sixth lecture there are some passages of considerable beauty. Still eternal hfe is represented too much as a thing of the future, and eternity is said to commence here below only in '^a certain sense.'' Everybody knows that this modification is almost always destructive of what it modifies ; fiu* more philosophical ia the distinction of St Paul : ^^ The things which are seen are temporal,. the things which are not seen are eternal." Nevertheless these lectures are &r in advance of that too popular teaching which represents eternal life as nothing more nor less than everlasting comfortableness, to be enjoyed in another world as a compensation' for the discomforts and sacrifices of this.

Am Introduction to the Old Testament^ critical, historical^ and theolo- fficalj containing a discussion of the most important questions belonging to the several books. By Samuel Davidson, D.D.^ LL.D. VoL III. 8vo. London : Williams and Norgate.

In this third volume. Dr. Davidson completes his survey of the books of the Old Testament. To this he adds a rather condensed, but detailed introduction to the best known Old Testament Apocrypha. The volume concludes with an index which comprises, perhaps, not fewer than four thousand references to subjects and authorities. It is very apparent that the learned author has explored an immense sur&ce to hrmg together such an enormous array of details. His book is well nigh a eydopndia of authors and opinions — more especially Continental — and from it one may leam what almost every body has thought and said on almost every topic discussed. There are in addition a great number of crictical investigations of special passages and words. It is scaroely necessary to remark that the whole is incorporated and consolidated, as well as classified and estimated, by the industry, and according to the judgment of Dr. Davidson. From his conclusion we often nnfeignedly dissent, on a variety of grounds, as we trust we have made plain in notices of the previous volumes, and shall make still plainer in a general survey of the whole triad before long. But it would be useless for us to disguise the fact of our deep sense of obliga- tion to Dr. Davidson for accumulating and formulating all the objections which he has been able to discover or to create in reference to the Old Testament books. Of the use made of his work by hifi fidus Achatr$

306 Notices of Boohs. [Aprils

of Natal we do not now speak. Another use nmst now be made of Mr book, and honest criticism on the aide of orthodoxy mnst make that use of it. We believe he will hasten the decision of some of the homing questions of the day, and we have no doubt as to the character of the verdict which will be arrived at.

Bishop OoUnso^s Obfeetions to the Historical Character of the Fenta" teuch and the Book qf Joshua, Contained in Part I., critically examined by Dr. A. Bbnisch, translator of the Jewish School and Family Bible. London : William Allan & Co. 1865. This volume, by no means of pretending appearance, is the woik of an Israelite, a man whose learning eminently qualifies him for his work, and whose modesty and good sense are equal to his learning. Without saying that all the arguments against Bishop Colenso's book are equally forcible — we may say that the Jew's is one of great power. It is wholly based on Biblical grounds, and ought to be read by all as a most valuable contribution to Scripture evi^nces. We shall return to this and others named below, of the same general character and scope, in our next number, when we hope to indicate the leading features of the more noticeable. The Colenso controversy thus far promises to call forth an immense number of publications. And so it ought, for on the face of it there is something wrong in the position of a man — a bishop — who on Sunday can stand at the altar and teli the people *'God spake all these words,'' etc.^ and on Monday write and publish a book to prove that we have no evidence that God said anything of the sorL

Offices from the Sendee Books of the Holy Ekutem Churchy ufith trans-

latioTij notes and glossary. By Richard Frederick Littledalb,

M.A., LL,D., Priest of the Church of England. London : Williams

and Norgate. 1863.

A VERT us^ul volume to those who share in the growing interest felt

in liturgical matters. The offices given are in Greek and in English,

and they are followed by a glossary of ecclesiastical Greek words, by

which its value is much enhanced. Every one knows how limited and

exclusive has been amongst us an acquaintance with the terms in

question. We hope to describe the volume more fully and recommend

it especially to our clerical readers.

The Proper Names of (he Old Testament^ arranged alphabetical^ from the original text, with historical and geographical Illustrations, for the use of Hebrew students, schoolmasters, and teachers : with an appendix of the Hebrew and Aramaic names in the New TestamenL £ondon : Williams and Norgate. This is the best work of the kind in our language. Similar attempts to accomplish the same object have commonly been egregious failures. We do not call this book perfect : we have noticed omissions in both lists, and have frequently found cause to dissent from the etymology given. But still it is a very useful book, and one which is most credit- able to the accomplished authoress.

1868.] Noiiee9 of Books. 209

fht mimal length qf Corrttpcndenee, and the great pretiure qf other mattert, prewnt more than a mere liet ixfthe titlea ofthefoUowtng JForit; $ome of which may receive a longer notice in ajuture Number.

Imogine, or the Flowers and Fruits of Rome. A metrical tale. By M. H. London :

Wertheim, Macintosh and Hunt. 1863. Echoes of the Universe, from the World of Matter and the World of Spirit. By

Henry Christmas, M.A., F.R.S., etc. SerentJi edition. London : Bentley. 1863. Cbristiaii Manhood. A sermon preached at the anniversary of the Church of

England Young Men's Christian Association, Limehouse Branch. By the Rev.

W. Cftthcart Marphy, M.A. London : Bell and Daldy. 1863. Science Elucidative of Scripture and not Antagonistic to it. A series of essays. By

John Radford Yoang. London : Lockwood and Co. 1863. The Divine Human in the Scriptures. By Taylor Lewis. London : James Nisbct

snd Co. 1863. Tin Apocalypse expounded by Scripture. By Matheetees. Vols. I., II. London :

Hisbet and Co. 1861-1862. Hints on Scripture Reading and Study. London : Nisbet and Co. 1863. Liber Cantabrigiensis. Part II. An account of the changes made by recent legis- lation in the Colleges, and the University of Cambridge ; with an appendix.

By Robert Potts, M.A. London : J. W. Parker, Son and Bourn. 1863. Chiliasm critically examined According to the statements of the New and Old Testa- ments. With reference to the most recent theory of the Millennium. By

Gust. Seyffarth, M.A.t etc. New York : Westermann. 1861. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined by the Right Rev. J.

William Colenso, D. D., Bishop of Natal. Part 11. London : Longmans. 1863. Hie Historic Character of the Pentateuch Vindicated. A reply to Part I. of Bishop

Colenso's ** Critical Examination." By a Layman of the Churcii of England.

London: Skeffington. 1863. Hie Exodus of Israel : its difficulties examined, and its truth confirmed. With a

reply to recent objections. By the Rev. T. R. Birks, M.A. London : The

Rel^us Tract Society. 1863. Bas taoaendjiihruge Reich und die Offenbarung Johannis. Ein Beitrag sum richtigen

Verstandniss beider fur Jedermann. Von D. T. Knussold. Erlangen: 1863. Der xtreite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda erkliirt von Theodor Schott. E rlangev : 1 863 . Handsobrifttiche Fande Ton Frans Delitssch. Mit Beitragen von S. P. Tregelles.

Zweites Heft. Leipsig and London : 1862. Torfesungea iiber Neutestamoiiiche Zeitgesohichte von Dr. Matthias Schnecken-

burger* Mit Einer Karte. Frankfort-on-Mein : 1862. Leben and aaagewiihlte Schriften der Viiter und Begriinder der Lutherishen Ktrche.

VIII. (supplement.) Theil. Elberfeld : 1862. An Exposition of ike PMphecy of Hosea. By the Rev. Jeremiah Burroughs, Rec- tor of Tivetshali, Norfolk. Edinburgh : James Nichol. Hie Works of Thomas Adams, with memoir by Joseph Angus, D.D. Vol. III.

containing sermons from texts in the New Testament and Meditations on the

Creed. Edinburgh : James Nichol. 'Ae' Works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D., sometime president of Magdalen College,

Oxford. Pre&ce by John C. Miller, D.D., Lincoln College, Hononary Canon uf

Woroeater, Rector of St. Martin's, Birmingham ; and Memoir by Robert Halley,

D.D., Principal of the Independent College, London. Edinburgh : James

Nichol. 1863. HieCkwpel Narrative Vindicated, or the Roman Census (Luke ii. 15) Explained;

and with reference to the birthday of our Lord. By Johannes Von Gumpach.

London : Samuel Bagster and Sons. Critical and Explanatory Commentary on the Old and New Testament. Parts II.,

III., IV. London : William Wesley. Hie Unpreached Gospel ; or. Embedded Truth. By the author i>{ the *' Study of

the Bible." London : Simpkin, Marshall and Co. A Summary of the Revelation Expounded. By Francis Bodfield Hooper, Rector

of Upton Warren in Worcestershire. London : J. and J. H. Rivington.

NEW SEB1E8. VOL. III., NO. V. P

( 210 ) [April,

MISCELLANIES.

The Codex Sinaiticus and iU JntiquUif. — In our January number^ pp. 488 — 491, we continued our extracts from the public prints in reference to this curious subject. Our readers will see that, among other things, we gave a letter from Simonides, and a note from the Literary Church- man concerning a letter from Alexandria professedly written by one Kallinikos Hieromonachos. • It appears that a letter, all the same ex- cept in a few verbal particulars, was addressed to the Guardian. Both these letters were published, and a translation of one of them is to be found below. Inasmuch, however, as the discussion which ensued brought into great prominence Mr. W. A. Wright, of Cambridge, it may be well to insert his first letter to the Guardian, which came out on November 5th : —

** The Codex Skutiticua. — Sir, — In your impression of Sept. 8rd, there ap- peared a letter signed * C. Simonides/ m which the writer asBerts that the MS. to which Tischendorf has given the name of the Oodex Sinaiticus, and which he has *■ foisted on the learned world as a MS. of the fourth century/ is in fact of a \ery modem date, and written hy Simonides himself little more than twenty years ago. This statement, which has not been refnted in vour colnmns, is aooompanied by circnmstantial details which I will now proceea to examine.

" About the end of the year 1839, at which time Simonides was fifteen years old (he was bom in the year 1824, on the 11th of November, about the horn* of sanrise), his ancle Benedict, head of the monastery of St. Panteleemon on Mount Athos, conceived a wish to make a valuable present to the Emperor of RoBsia. After some consultation it was decided that the present should be 'a oopy of the Old and New Testaments, written according to the ancient form, in capital letters, and on parchment,' together with the remains of the Seven Apostolic Fathers. The task was declined, on aooount of its difficulty, by Dionvsins, the professional caligrapher to the monastery, hut was undertaken by Simonides at his uncle's argent request. After examining the principal copies of the Holy Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, he then, a boy of fifteen, * began to practise the principles of caligraphy.' Benedict, meanwhile, collated a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments with the ancient ones (MS8., I presume), and having cleared it of errors, gave it into his nephew's hands to transcribe. The transcription went on apace, and Simonides had already copied out the Old and New Testaments, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the first part of the Shepherd of Hermas, when his supply of parchment ran short, the death of his uncle induced him to relinquish his task, and the volume was left incomplete.

" I shall content myself for the present with examining the statement of Simonides up to this pomt. I find, on referring to A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, etc., by Charles Stewart, published in 1859, circulated by Simonides himself, and therefore, I presume, authentic, — that his onde Benedict died on the 29th of August, 1840 (p. 8). Simonides reached Mount Athos from the PiersBUB in November, 1839. So that between the end of 1839 and the death of Benedict in August, 1840, we have the following extraordinary series of events. The scheme of a present to the Emperor of Russia is devised, and its nature resolved on. Simonides, a boy barely fifteen years old, undertakes a task which was declined by the professional caligrapher to the monastery on account of its extreme difficulty. To prepare himself for it he begins to practise the principles of caltgraphy. All this while Benedict is engpaged in collating a oopy of the Old and New Testaments with the MSS. in the monastery, and those woo are at all experienced in collation know well that this was a work which must have occupied a considerable time. But in spite of this — in spite of the youth

1863.]

Miscellanies, 211

and inexperience of the copyist, who, by his own confession, h^d to acquire the ▼ery rudiments of his art in order to qualify himself for a task from which an experienced caligrapher shrank — the work proceeded so rapidly that by the time of Benedict's death in August it was well-nigh completed, and had already receired his corrections. I submit to you, Sir, that such a story carries on the hce of it a high degree of improbability.

" Let us now turn to the Biographical Memoir, and see what was happening to Simonides during these months. As I said before, he arrived at Mount Athos in November, 1839, ^ where he found his relative Benedict living in the monastery of Rbosos. In this monastery he remained some time studying theo* lo^y under Benedict, who was a most accomplished scholar and a great linguist, ^. 4). Benedict had in his possession a number of ancient manuscripts, and by mlbrroation received from an aged monk, Gregory, on his death-bed, he became the discoverer of a valuable library which had been buried in a secret hidine- plAce under the ruins of an extinct monastery. The story of the discovery is afanost pathetic ; how Simonides wept and Benedict groaned at the sight of the treasures which they saw piled in confusion on the floor. The MBS. were removed to a neighbouring room, and from that time Benedict * set aside everything else,' and applied himself day and night to the care of his treasure. But his eyes fidled him and he instructed his nephew, Simonides, in the art of palfeograpny, that he mi^ht be able to read and copy the MSS. On the 29th of August, 1840, Benedict died.

** At the very time, therefore, when according to his letter Simonides was occupied in learning the principles of palno^aphy and transcribing the Old and New Testaments, he is described in the Biographical Memoir as adding to his already enormous labours the task of reading and cop^in^ ancient MSS. for his ancle, and prosecuting the study of theology. Not a hint is given in the Memoir of the transcript for the Emperor of Russia, although in the letter this is the object for which he acquired the art of palsoography, which in the Memoir is tamed to account in deciphering and transcribing the MSS. which had been buried In the hidden library. Benedict, too, an old man of seventy, must have had a good amount of work still in him, if, besides collating the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testaments, he could devote himself, * day and night, alone and without any aid,' to the task of preparing for publication the MSS. of which he was the fortunate possessor.

** In these accounts separately, and certainly in the two combined, there are many things hard to be understood, and the difficulties are such as will be appreciated by the ordinary reader. Before proceeding any farther with the examination of Simonides' statement, I should wish to have these points made dear, if indeed they admit of explanation. When that is done, I have still some other difficulties in reserve for which I shall ask a solution. '* W. A. Wbioht.

" Trin. CoO. Oambridge, OcL 27, 1862."

" M. SIMONIDES.

•

*' We translate the following, sent to us from Alexandria, that Mr. Simonides may have the benefit of his unknown friend's testimony. Possibly the evidence thus volunteered, coupled with statements already printed by friends of Simo- nides, may be found simply to render the story, as now told, still more incredible. It is, of course, obvious also (1) that the evidence of the writer of the letter is simply worthless until we know who that writer himself is, and (2) that the letter is a very suspicious echo of Simonides' own statements. We do not recognize the name of the monastery at Athos {UavrtXeritMfy) : —

(Here fdUom the Greek text, — Trarutlation) .

" Mr. Editor — I have read what the wise Greek Simonides has published re- specting the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex, by means of your excellent weekly publica- tion ; and I do myself declare to all men by this letter, that the Codex of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Shepherd Hennas, which was abstracted by Dr. Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of

F 2

212 Miacellanieg. [Aprils

Monnt Sinai, ib a work of the hands of the unwearied Simonides himself; inaa-. much as I myself saw him in 1843 in the month of Fehruary writing it in Athos. And I further know for certain, that it was delivered by him to the venerable Patriarch Constantius, who sent it to the monastery of Sinai, in order that it might be compared with other MSS. there of the Holy Scriptures, and might be subsequently transcribed by the same Simonides, and might be dedicated to the Emperor of Russia, the venerable Nicholas, not on behalf of the monastery of the All-Merciful (IlavrcAciifuaK) in Athos, as originally intended, but on behalf of the Holy Patriarch Constantius. Whereupon the holy monk Callistratus, having oom- pared it with other codices of the same monastery at the bidding of the Patriarch Constantius, and having corrected it in part, left it in the library, awaiting the return of Simonides. The latter, however, not coming in time, neglected the matter altogether, until Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if mjr memory does not deceive me), and remain- ing there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and reperusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed. And last of all, coming again to the same monastery, he ootained also the remaining portion of it through the Russian Consul, in exchange for hyperbolical promises, never, in my judgment, likely to be fulfilled.

" All these things I know, having been on the spot. And I declare them now openly for the sake of truth. And I further declare that the codex which Dr. Tischendorf obtained is the identical codex which Simonides wrote about twenty-two years ago, and none other ; inasmuch as 1 saw it in the hands oC Tischendorf, and recognized the work ; and I first informed Simonides, who was previously in ignorance thereof, of the abstraction of his codex from the library of the monastery of Mount Sinai. And originally, also, I read this half-line written in it — Xifi«tyiSw rh HKoy ipyw — ^bnt two days after, Uie leaf containing this artistically written line had disappeared, by whose doing I do not know. And I know yet further, that the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its j)archments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case.

" And these things, Mr. Editor, I have judged it my duty, unasked, to com- municate to you, before my death ; for I am an old man, and await death daily. And you, on your part, will greatly serve the cause of truth and charity, if you will make public the exact purport of this letter, etc. — Your sincere servant, etc. ** + Kallinikos HucBOMoxAcaoa.

" Alexandria, Oct, 16, 1862."

*^ We have received the following letter from Simonides himself: —

** * My dear Sir, — I have received and read with sattsfiaction the 883rd number of the OuarcUariy and I will furnish the needful reply at the proper time. Mean- while let me tender you my thanks, with the price of the number. Farewell. — * Yours very truly, etc. * Simonides.

* London, Nov, 17, 1862. 2, OaroUne Street, Bedford Square, W.a

' To the Editor of the Ouardian.*

" M. SIMONIDES.

** Sir, — I ascertain, from letters received in the month of November last, that the Hieromonachos Kallinikos of Alexandria has written to tou refuting the antiquity of the Codex Sinaiticus, and declaring that it was wntten in modem days and by myself. I beg you, therefore, briefly to acknowledge the receipt of it, and at the same time to say whether you have any intention of publishing it.

*' I must inform you that the above-mentioned Kallinikos is a perfectly upright and honourable man, well known for truth and probity, so that his simplest word may be relied on.

" He was living at Athos when I wrote the Codex Sinaiticus (which was about 1840) ; he overlooked me during the progress of the work, and thus

186S.] MiMcellames. 213

became an eye- whneaa of it. His teBtimony may therefore be considered as invaluable. ** C. Bimomidbs.

" 2 CaroUne Street, Bedford Sqvare, Dee. 3, 1862."

** [ We publish this letter as heloing to prove complicity between the writer of it and the witness to whom it pears testimony. Simonides hardly seems aware that arguing in a circle is a fallacy in the rules of eyidence as well as in those of logic Callinicus bears witness to Simonides, and vice vereA Simonides bears witness to Gallinions. Can neither of them call some independent witness to bear real eyidence to character ?] "

" Sir, — ^To my letter of 27th of October M. Simonides will reply at the proper time. I sbonld haye thought no time so proper as the present. As he declines to explain the difficulties I then brought mrward, I presume he has no answer to make. He reserves his defence, and I therefore proceed with my case. In one respect, however, he has given me material assistance — 1 perhaps ought to say his friend Kallinikos, but the two are one. It had been better for M. Simonides had his friend, ' an old man awaiting death,' passed away without making this sign. I will take his evidence for what it is worth.

" The letter of Kallinokos has the unfortunate merit of proving too much. The writer asserts that he saw Simonides writing the Codex Sinaitious in February, 1840. I can fully believe that if Simonides wrote the Codex, the writer of the letter signed * Kallinikos Hieromonachos' saw him engaged at the work. But Kallinikos not only saw Simonides writing the Codex ; he knows for certain that it was delivered to the Patriarch Con stan tins. Well and good. 8o far his account tallies with the letter which Simonides wrote, and which was published in the Oxtardian of the 3rd of September. If you refer to this, joxjl will see that the Patriarch Constantius complied with the wish of Simonides that the MS. should be deposited in the library of Mount Sinai. Not a word of its being placed there for the purpose of being collated with other MSS. in the library. Not a word about its subsequent transcription for the Emperor of Russia. I will not discuss the question as to the capacity of the monks of Mount Sinai for the collation which was assigned them. All I will say is that here Simonides' friend has known more than Simonides himself did at the time he wrote the letter to which I have alluded. How this has come about is to me perfectly patent.

" But to proceed with the letter of Kallinikos. It appears that he not only saw Simoniaes writing the MS., he not only was perfectly informed of its delivery to the venerable Patriarch Constantius, but most remarkable coinci- dence ! — he was on the spot when Professor Tischendorf visited Mount Sinai in 1844, and he says abstracted a small portion of the MS. This ' small portion,' was some forty-three leaves ; but no matter. Kallinikos was again on the spot when Tischendorf carried off the remainder of the MS. He appears to have possessed the admirable quality of being exactly where he was wanted.

" At this point I would pause ; but I will quote one other sentence from the letter of Kallinikos. He says, * I first informed Simonides, who was previously in ignorance thereof, of the abstraction of his codex from the library of tne Monas- tery of Mount Sinai.' If you will refer to the letter of Simonides himself, you wiU see that he says, * About two years ago I saw the first facsimiles of Tischendorf, which were put into my hand at Liverpool, by Mr. Newton,' when, he adds, * I at once recognized my own work, as I immediately told him.' We have, therefore, the choice between two alternatives. Kallinikos either refers to the abstraction in 1844 or in 1859. If he refers to the former, he must have left his friend in ignorance for sixteen years ; if to the latter, for more than a year. Both these suppositions are inconsistent with the close intimacy which subsists between Simonides and Kallinikos. These are plain facts from which your readers can form their own conclusions.

** To proceed. The letter of Kallinikos charges Tischendorf with theft. If Kallinikos were not apocryphal, the charge would be libellous. But as in the

214 MiseeUames. £AprU,

former instance he knew too mucli, in this he knows too little. In Smontdes' letter, published in the Guardian of the drd of September, the writer says of the MS. which he professes to have written himself, * I saw it there, [t. e., at Monnt Sinai] myself, and begged the librarian to inform me how the monastery had acquired it ; bat he did not appear to know anything of the matter, and I, for my part, said nothing. However, I examined the MS., and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to the Emperor Nicholas, placed at the beginning of the book, had been removed.' With these exceptions, there is not a hint that the MS. was not as perfect as when it left his hands : not a hint that ' the original covers, made of wood^ and covered with leather,' had been removed, and that, in fact, the MS. was entirely disinleerated and large portions of it lost. In 1844, eight years before the time at whi^ Simonides says he saw it again, Professor Tischendorf had carried off some loose leaves, which were lying in the monastery utterly uncared for. But before Tischendorf s visit, two hundred and seventy-two leaves had been lost at the bennning of the MS. How does Simonides account for these ? Surely the

Sip which would have been caused by this loss would not have escaped notice. e cannot pretend to say that they were torn out with the dedication to the Emperor of Russia. I have my own reasons for believing that Simonides first became acquainted with the fact that Tischendorf, so early as 1844, had brought from Mount Sinai some portion of the MS., on the 7th of October of the present year, in the Cambridge University library; and that he there saw for the first time the facsimile reprint of the Codex Friderico-Augustanaus. Perhaps he will reply to this at * the proper time.' If he does not, my opinion will be confinned, thouff b it can scarcely be strengthened. If he does, I have no doubt that, like his fnend Eallinikos, he will create at least as many diflSculties as he solves. And even when he has replied to this and my last letter, I shall still have some points upon which I shall desire further information.

** In conclusion, as Simonides states in his letter that he can point to two distinct pages in the MS. which contain the most unquestionable proof of its being his writing, I challenge him to place in your hands a statement of those marks of recognition in a sealed envelope, which shall be opened in the presence of impartial and competent witnesses, and compared with the fincsimile reprint of the Codex Sinaiticus which Tischendorf has just completed. Unless tnis is done at. once it will be valueless. If it is not done, but one conclusion can be drawn from it. If it is done, and the comparison proves satisfactoiy, it will only shew that Simonides has seen the MS. at Mount Sinai, as he professes to have done.

** I would now call attention to another point in the narrative of the fortunes of the MS. as related bv Simonides. After the work of transcription had abruptly come to an end by the death of his uncle in August, 1840, Simonides took the MS. with him to Constantinople. It was there seen by the Patriarch Constantius, who urged him to present it to the library of Mount Sinai. The present^ for which he received 25,000 piastres, was made, and the receipt of the volume acknowledged in a letter from Constantius, dated ' 13th August, 1841.' Some time after, how long we do not find, it was sent to its destination. I would call attention especially to the fact that in the original story nothing is said about the MS. being sent to Mount Sinai for collation with other MSS. m order that it might again be transcribed by Simonides. This is a fact which we first learn from the letter of Kallinikos. Furthermore, the monks seem to have set small store by the MS., for in May, 1844, it was found by Tischendorf in tatters, and some loose leaves, utterlv uncared for, were brought away by him and published in 1846 as the Codex Friderico-Augustanus. Of this * abstraction,' by Tischendorf, we are first informed by Kallinikos. Simonides knew notibing of it when he wrote his first letter to you. I have reason to believe that he first became aware of the existence of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus on the 7th of October of the present year. The date of Kallinikos' letter is October 15th, old style, I presume ; that is October 27th, new style. A mail for Alexandria tfiA Marseilles left London on October 10th. Letters sent by this mail would reach Alexandria about the 20th or 21st. A return letter from Alexandria might he

1868.] Miscellanies. 215

sent either on October 28tli or November 4th, There was, therefore, ample time for this newly acqaired fact to be transmitted to Alexandria and to return. I will leave you, Sir, to draw your own conclusions from these points which I have put before you. Taking into consideration the remarkable coincidence between the letter of Kallinikos and the story it is intended to corroborate, the extreme improbability of his having been on the spot at such critical moments in the history of the MS., and the bringing to light for the first time a fact in CI»t history with which Simonides had onnr recently become acquainted, I sub- mit that there are grave reasons why we should regard its testimony with sus- picion. Coincidences like these have fallen to the lot of Simonides more than to that of any living man. Does he want confirmation of a statement, he has the authority of MSS., and inscriptions to which he can appeal at will. I recommend any of your readers who desire an illustration of this, to refer to his discassion of the disputed reading in Matt. xix. 24 {FacsimHea, etc., p. 45, etc). He brings forward inscriptions from monuments in Lycia, Cilicia, ana at Gaza ; and gives not only the readings from some eight or nine MSS. which are

Preserved at Mount Sinai, at Mount Athos, or the Monastery of St. Saba in Palestine, but what is most remarkable, and to my mind most instructive, he gives the verse, and, in some instances, the context in facnmiU, Surely no man was ever so fortunate as Simonides. He finds whatever he looks for, and now he has found his friend Kallinikos.

" Permit me to congratulate you, Sir, on the wide circulation which the Cfuardittn has attained. I should think few papers can boast of Greek readers at Alexandria. »' W. A. Wiuoht.

" Trin. OolL, Cambridge, Dee, 5th, 1862."— <?tiar£fia?i, Dec. lOth,

It seems scarcely necessary to insert the letter of Kallinikos, as it appeared in the Literary Churchman of Dec. 1 6th, but we will add one from Simonides, which appeared at the same time : —

*' Since this letter, we have had another, stating that Simonides is preparing a book in vindication of what he affirms. But before we proceed to comment on these, we will extract the entire statement made by Simonides himself, which is as follows : —

" * About the end of the year 1839, the venerable Benedict, mv uncle, spi- ritual head of the monastery of the holy martyr Panteleemon, in Mount Athos, wished to present to the Emperor Nicholas I., of Russia, some gift from the sacred mountain, in grateful acknowledgment of the presents which had from time to time been offered to the monastery of the martyr. Not nossessing any- thing which he deemed acceptable, he consulted with the herald Procopius and the Russian monk Paul, and they decided upon a copy of the Old and New Testaments, written according to the ancient form, in capital letters, and on parchment. This, together with the remains of the seven npostolic fathers — Barnabas, Hermas, Clement Bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the Areopagite — they proposed should be bound in gold, and presented to the Emperor by a common friend. Dionysius, the professional caligrapher of the monastery, was then begged to undertake the worx, but he declined, saying that the task being exceedingly difficult, he would rather not do so. In conse- quence of this, I myself determined to begin the work, especially as my revered uncle seemed earnestly to wish it. Having then examined the principal copies of the Holy Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, I began to practice the prin- ciples of calligraphy ; and the learned Benedict, taking a copy of the Moscow emtion of both Testaments ^published and presented to the Greeks by the illus- trious brothers Zosimas), collated it with the ancient ones, and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he gave it into my hands to transcribe. Having then received both the Testaments, freed from errors (the old spelling, however, remaining unaltered), being short of parchment, 1 selected from the library of the monastery, with Benedict's permission, a very bulky volume, antiquely bound, and almost entirely blank, the parchment of which waa

216 MisceUatnes. [April,

remarkably clean, and beautifully finished. This had been preparad apparently many centuries ago — probably by the writer or by the principal of the oionai* tery, as it bore the inscriotion, EKAOnON IIANHrTPIKON (a collection of Pane- gyrics), and also a short discourse, much injured by time.

'* ^ 1 therefore took possession of this book, and prepared it by taking out tha leaf containing the discourse, and by removing several others injured by time and moths, after which I began my task. First, I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of the pastoral wiittnflpi of Hermas in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the style known in cati- graphy as ifitfn94^io5 (amphidexiM). The transcription of the remaining Apoatolie writings, however, I declined, because the supply of parchment ran abort, and the severe loss which I sustained in the death of Benedict induced me to hand the work over at once to the bookbinder of the monastery, for the porpoflo of replacing the original covers, made of wood and covered with leather, which I had removed for convenience — and when he had done so, I took it into my pos- session.

*^ ' Some time after this, having removed to Constantinople, I shewed the work to the patriarcJis AfUJUmus and Oansianiiua, and communicated to them the reason ox the transcription. Constantius took it, and, having thorongUy examined it, urged me to present it to the library of Sinai, which I accordingly promised to do. Constantius had previously been Bishop of Sinai, and sinee nis resignation of that office had again become Perpetual Bishop of tluit place.

*' ' Shortly after this, I was placed under the protection of the illaBtriooB Countess Ethng and her brother, A. S. Stourtzas, by the co-operation of the two patriarchs; but, before departing for Odessa, I went over to the island of Antigonus to visit Constantius, and to perform my promise of giving up the manuscript to the library of Mount Sinai. The patriarch was, however, ament from home, and I, consequently, left the packet for him with a letter. On hia return, ho wrote me the following answer : —

" ' My dearly beloved Son in the Holy Spirit, Simonides ; Grace be with you and peace from God.

^' * I received with unfeigned satisfaction your truly valuable transcript of the Holy Scriptures— namely, the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of St. Barnabas and the first part of the pastoral writings of Hennas, bound in one volume, which shall be placed in the library of Mount Sinai, according to your wish. But I exhort you earnestly (if ever by God's will you should return to the sacred Mount Athos) to finish the work as you originally designed it, and He will reward you. Be with me on the Sid of next month, that I may give you letters to the illustrious A. S. Stourtzas, to inform htm of your talents and abilities, and to give you a few hints which may prove useful to the success of your pUms. I smcerely trust that you were bom for the honour of your country. Amen.

* CoNSTAMTiin, late of Constantinople,

* An earnest worshipper in Christ. * Island of Antigonus, 13th Aug., 1841.'

" ' After I had received the above letter, I again went to visit the patriarch, who gave me the kindest and most paternal advice, with letters to Stourtzas ; after which 1 returned to Constantinople, and from thence went to Odessa in

November, 1841.

*| * In 1846, 1 again returned to Constantinople, when I at once went over to the island of Antigonus to visit Constantius, and to place in his possession a largo packet of M^8. He received me with the greatest kindness, and we conversed on many different subjects, amongst others, upon my transcript, when ho informed me that he had sent it some time previously to Mount Sinai.

" ' In 1862, 1 saw it there myself, and begged the librarian to inform me how the monastery had acquired it ; but he did not appear to know anything of the matter, and 1, for my part, said nothing. However, I examined the MS., and round it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to the Emperor Nicholas, placed at the beginning of the book, bad

1863.] Miacdkmea. 217

been remored. I then began my philolo^oal researches, for there were sereral ▼aloable MSS. in the library, which I wished to examine. Amongst them, I found the pastoral writings of Hermas, the Holy Gospel sccoraing^ to St. Matthew, and the disput^ Epistle of Aristeas to Philoctetes (all written on B^ptian papyrus of tne first century), with others not unworthy of note. All this I oommunioated to Gonstantius, and afterwards to my spiritual father, Gsilistratus at Alexandria.

^* * You have thus a short and olear account of the Codex Simonideios, which Profeesor Tischendorf, when at Binai, oontriyed, I know not how, to carry away ; and, going to St. Petersburg, published his discovery there under the name of the Cad^ Sinslticus. When, about two years a^, 1 saw the first fac- similes of Tischendorf, which were put into my hand at Liverpool, by Mr. New- ton, a friend <^ Dr. Tregellee, I at once recognized my own work, as I imme- diately told him.

*' *• The above is a true statement of the origin and history of the fitmous Codex t^niaticus, which Professor Tischendorf has foisted on the learned world as a MS. of the fourth century. I have now only one or two remarks to make. Hie name of the professional caligraphist to the monastery at St. Panteleemon was Dionysius ; the name of the monk who was sent by the Patriarch Gonstan- tius to convey the volume from the island of Antieonus to Sinai was Germanus. The volume, whilst in my possession, was seen by many persons, and it was perused with attention by the Hadji John Prodromes, son oi Pappa Prodromes, who was a minister of the Greek Church in Trebizond. John Prodromes kept a coffee-house in Galatas, Constantinople, and probably does so still. The note from the Patriarch Gonstantius, acknowledging the receipt of the MS8., toge- ther with 25,000 piastres, sent to me by Gonstantius as a benediction, was brought to me by the deacon Hilarion. All the persons thus named are, I believe, still alive, and could bear witness to the truth of my statement.

" ^ Of the internal evidence of the MS. I shall not now speak. Any person learned in palssography ought to be able to tell at once thkt it is a MS. of the present age. But 1 may just note that my uncle Benedict corrected the MS. in many places, and as it was intended to lie re-copied, he marked many letters which he purposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle, I can, of course, point out ; as also those of Dionysius the caligraphist. In various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different MSS. from which I had taken certain passages and readings. These initials appear to have greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly ingenious methods of accounting for them. Lastly, I declm my ability to point to two distinct pages in the MS., though I have not seen it for years, in which is contained the most unquestionable proof of its being my writing.

'* ' In making this statement, 1 know perfectly well the conseouences I shall bring upon myself ; but I have so long neen accustomed to calumny, that I have ffTovm indifferent to it ; and I now solemnly declare that my only motive for publishing this letter is to advance the cause of truth, and protect sacred letters from imposition.

*''' * In conclusion, you must permit me to express my sincere regret that, whilst the many valuable remains of antiquity in my possession are frequently attribnted to my own hands, the one ^oor work of my youth is set down by a gentleman who enjoys a great reputation for learning, as the earliest copy of the Sacred Scriptures.

* C. SlMOiriDKS.' »

To the foregoing, the following answers were printed iu the Literary Ckureknumy of January 1st, and we reprint them from copies kindly supplied by Mr. Wright himself : —

THE »* 8INAITIC " MS. li

The ability and sineerity of the learned writer of the following letter demand that he should have a fair hearing. We cheerfully print it, wishing only that

218 Miscellanies. April,

tnith may be asoertamed. We only correct one passagei yus., as to the name of the Aichhnandrite ; in the letter addressed to as, it is ** Porrhyruu." *

" TO THE EDITOR OP THE * UTEBABY CHURCHMAN.'

" Sib, — In your evident anxiety to mete out lostice to both Simonides and Tischendorf, I venture to think that in your article of Deo. 16, you have been a little hard upon the latter. You say : *■ There is an air of improbability in the story, both as told by Tischendorf, and by Simonides.' In your version of the story as told by Tischendorf, there are some points which make it appear more improbable than when told in his own words. You lay great stress upon the fact that the Codex Siniaticus contains the whole Bible complete : *■ The broadly- suspicious circumstance is, that the entire and unmutilated Bible is here firU discovered — ^no manuscript hitherto had been heard of without an omission, without a flaw. Its very perfection is a difficulty.' The writer of these sen- tences could surely not have been aware of the condition of the MS. as described by its discoverer. [Our writer refers to the former papers in this Journal for the unintelligible statement; and we must do the same. — En. L. C] The Codex Sinaiticus, so far from being a perfect MS. of the whole Bible, contains only 345^ leaves, out of upwards of 700, of which it originally consisted. The Codex Frederico-A.ugustanus consists of 43 leaves of the same MS. All the rest is lost. The broad suspicion arising from the perfection of the MS. is therefore at once removed. The defects of the Codex Sinaiticus may be more accurately stated thus. The whole of the Pentateuch, the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 Chr. i. — ^ix., xix. 18— end, are wanting, as are 2 Chron., part of Ezra, part of the Lamentations, and the whole of Eae- kiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos and Micah. I am quoting from memory, but I believe this statement to be nearly correct. While, however, the peifect con- dition of the MS. is no longer a cause of suspicion against Tischendorf, its actual condition tells very strongly against Simonides. I will not go through all the points advanced in my letters to the Guardian, published on Nov. 5 and Dec. 10, to which Simonides has not replied ; but I will call your attention to one fact only. Simonides says that the MS. which he wrote was left with the Patriarch Constantius in August, 1841 ; that, in 1846, when at the island of Antigonns, he found it had been sent to the Library of Mount Sinai some time previously ; and that he himself saw it at the last-mentioned place in 1852. And what account does he give of its appearance then ? He says : * I found it much altered — having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to the Emperor Nicholas, placed at the beginning of the book, had been removed.' If the MS. which Simonides saw and recognized for his own had been the same as the Codex Sinaiticus, he could not have described its condition in these words. This was, be it remembered, eight years after Tischendorf had carried off 43 leaves, of which, at the time of writing to the Guardian of Sept. 3, Simonides knew nothing. We first hear of this on his side of the question from the letter of Kallinikos, who insinuates that Tischendorf mutilated the MS. during the absence of the librarian, and stole the leaves which he tore out. You will observe that the charge against Tischendorf has changed its complexion. It was at first a charge of ignorance. Tischendorf, mistaking a MS. of the nine- teenth century for one of the fourth, was about to involve the learned world of Europe in the results of his error. But, since the letter of Kallinikos, the charjje has assumed a different character. Tischendorf is no longer the victim of ms own want of judgment, but a daring impostor, who, knowing this MS. to be the work of Simonides, palms it off as a work of the highest antiquity, havicg first obtained possession of it by means which are not obscurely hinted at as infa- mously dishonest.

" You appear to consider, Sir, that the question is a balance of improbabilities, and that the improbability of either story is one of degree only ; that both stories are improbable, and one is but slightly more so than the other. I will ask yon,

' 1 have seen the original, and it is '^ Porphyrins," as plainly as possible. • W. A. W.

18680 MueeOames. 219

then, to take Tiecbendoff s own aocoant of his dlsooTery of the MS., and com- paie it with the tale of Simooides. In May, 1844, Tischendorf found in the Jdonaatery of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, some loose leaves of a very ancient MS., which the monks allowed him to take away, and which he puhlished in 1846, as the Oodex JMderico-Augustamu. On the same occasion he saw a larger bundle of loose leaves, which he recognized as a part of the same MS., but which he could not prevail upon the monks to part with. He told them of its value, and advised them to preserve it carefully. On a subsequent visit, in 1853, he made enquiry for the portion which he had left, but could find no trace of it, and came to the conclusion that it had been carried to Europe. It was seen, in 1846, at Mount Sinai, by the Archimandrite Porphyrins — not * Porrhy- rius,' as you have printed his name. In 1869, Tischendorf again went to Mount Sinai, and in a conversation with the steward of the m<ma8tery, the latter informed him of an ancient MS. which was in the possession of the monks, and, to Tischendorf s surprise and delight, produced the very fragment which he had seen 15 years before, and which he had given up for lost. It was wrapped in a cloth ana entirely disintegrated, the leaves being loose and in many cases torn. He begged permission of the monks to copy it, and the permission was given on condition of obtaining the archbishop's consent. On TischendorPs arrival at Cairo the necessary consent was obtained, the MS. was forwarded to him there, and a copy of it made. It ultimately came into the possession of the Emperor of Russia. I confess, Sir, that this account does not seem to me on the face of it to be highly improbable. There is a tinffe of romance about the rendiscovery of the missing fragment, but this is not without parallel in the annals of archeo- logy. In two points you have not been fair to Tischendorf. He * txeknowledges^* you say, * that it had been the intention of the monks to present the MS. to the JBmperor of Russia.' If you refer to his NoHUa Oodieis SinaUiei^ ^ou will find that he first su^g^sted to them the idea of presenting it. Agam, you say,

* Tischendorf gained permission to copy the MS. for publication ; having, as we suppose, published the former part, without permitnon.* As the monks had allowed him to carry away the former part, there was no necessity for him to obtain permission to copy it, and therefore I think the insinuation contained in the last clause of your sentence might have been spared.

" Now let me call your attention to the statement of Simonides. It amounts to this. In Nov. 1839, 1, Constantino Simonides, being then 15 years of age, went to the monastery of St. Panteleemon, on Mount Athos, of which my uncle Benedict was the spiritual head. Between that time and the death of my uncle, in August, 1840, I occupied myself in the following manner. I studied the MSS. of the monastery, for the purpose of acquiring the first principles of the art of calligraphy, and I made such progress in this, that I volunteerea to under- take a task from which the professional caligrapher to the monastery shrank, on account of its difficulty. This was a copy of the Old and New Testament, with the Epistle of Barnabas and the first part of the Shepherd of Hermas, in uncial characters on vellum. At the same time I studied theology under my uncle (see Life of Simonides, by C. Stewart), and assisted him in. deciphering and copying some ancient MSS. which had recently come into his possession. For this purpose (not, as Simonides had said before, for the purpose of writing the Codex Smaiticus), he taught me palaeography. My uncle had injured his eyes by poring over these MSS. (not by collating the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testaments), and employed me to continue his work. All this happened in the few months which elapeed between Nov. 1839 and August 1840,4it which time I was only 15 years old.

" Thus far, I submit to you, Sir, the story of Simonides abounds with impro- babilities. Let us follow his account of the MS. It was left with the Patriarch Constantius, for transmission to Mount Sinai, some time in August, 1841, to be kept there till Simonides could recopy it. In two years and a half the monks had torn it to pieces, and it was found, in May, 1844, in the condition described above by Tischendorf. But it is not from Simonides himself that we hear of Tischendorf s visit. This we learn from the ubiquitous Kallinikos, who was

* on the spot.' Simonides could have known nothing of it, or he would not

220 Miscellanies. [April,

haye tpoken of the MS., as he sayB he saw it in 1862, when neatly half of it had disappeared. In fact, I haye good reason to beUeye that Simonides was totally ignorant of the ezistenoe of the Codex Friderico-Augostanas till the mcmth of Octoher in the present year (1862).

*^ Next comes upon the Bcene that wonder of wonders, the Hieromonachos Kallinikos, who has cosmopolitan sympathies of no ordinary kind, and is a con- stant reader of the Chuxrdian and Literary Churchman. Here, Sir, is another of the many improhabilities which meet us at every step in the statement of the case as it comes from Simonides and his admirers. Bimonides makes an asser- tion with regard to his share in the transcription of the * Codex Sinaiticos,' which has this feature, in common with a true narrative, that it contains manv circumstantial details. But in the foce of the glaring improbabilities with which, at the same time, it abounds, these details are of no worth whatever ; and no appeals to Qreek coffee-housekeepers in Constantinople can give weight or credibility to an account which itself contains so many elements of a douboul nature. At this crisis, Kallinikos comes to the rescue. And who is Kallinikos ? We infer from his own account that he takei in [This is not quite fairlr stated by Mr. Wright. The Uieromonk hardly implies that. — £d. L. C] the Cfuarditm and Literary Churchman^ and that he is a Greek monk. Furthermore, his veracity is attested by Simonides himself. More improbabiHties again. A Greek monk at Alexandria, of whom no one can give any account, a constant reader of the Guardian and lAterary Churchman^ comes forward, and, to rescue his friend's character, delivers himself of a secret which he has carried in his breast for eighteen years and more — the secret of TischendorTs delinquencies. Kallinikos is the very model of a witness. He gives evidence on all the points that Simonides himself had brought forward, lie saw Simonides writing the MS., knew of its delivery to the patriarch Constantius, and knew, moreover, the name of the monk who carried it to Mount Sinai, as well as the name of the monk who collated it, with other MSS. there. He saw Tischendorf with it in his hands in May, 1844, and knew that he tore some of the leaves out, and stole them without scruple ; and, finidly, that he deluded the monk, by false promises, to part with the- MS., without any intention of carrying these promises into effect. He insinuates, moreover, that the leaf containing the signature of Simonides disappeared after the MS. had been in Tischendoirs hands.

'* I wish. Sir, you had deferred the publication of this letter of Kallinikos tfll you had ascertained more about him. What will be the result of your enquiries ? I think I can hazard a shrewd guess. The stronp^ Improbability that a Greek monk at Alexandria should interest himself in a discussion which is ffoing on in the English newspapers; that he should come forward in the very ntck of time, and give precisely tne evidence that Simonides wanted ; that he shonld have been an eve-witness to all the most important scenes in the history of the MS. : that he should know more of its fortunes than Simonides did on Sept. 8, and exactly so much, and no more, than he knew on the 7 th of October, constitutes, to my mind, a series of difficulties which are scarcely explicable on the supposi- tion that Kallinikos has a real existence, but which are easily solved by another and very palpable hypothesis.

** I will leave you to decide whether of these two statements, that made by Tischendorf, or that made by Simonides, carries with it the greater amount of improbability. The issue of this dispute will leave one or other of these men with the imputation of being a common rogue. We must have in this case stronger evidence than the nare word of a Greek monk, though supported by eemi-blasphemous appeals to the Almighty, and threats of the day of Judgment

** I remain, Sir, yours faithfully, W. A. WaioHT. '" Trinity College, Cambridge, 26 Dec, 1862."

" TO THE EDrrOB OF THE * UTEBA.BT CUUECDIIAN.'

*' SiK, — You have done a good work in printing the original text, of the letter of Callinious in your last number, as translations are seldom to be re- lied on.

1863.] Mi$cellanie9. 321

" I make no apology for pointing oat severalr more or lets important, mis- takes in that which you have pUced before vour readers, premising that I have not seen the letter in the Otiardian to which yon allude, as in some respects different from your own copy.

*^ In the first sentence yiw^K€T€ is imperative ; *• know ye,' not * yon are aware,' and there should he a comma, not a full stop, before txovaiy iJ<,rfiA$^ tiiose words depending on Baeartp^ etc. For htnnirtfrai read i-riiuntrt,

" ' Injury to the Church must accrue from all this, even ffjfrom the evidently miumerous carreetione of the MS.^ — tytxa tup Ktnit ZSicqinif iroAAi^if ahrov Zio^Aatttp* I take ZiopO^tu to be emendations of the vulgar text supplied by the MS., which, if it be a modern one, are only corrections icark iixfitriy, apeeih magia quam re, and therefore a ereat injury to the Church.

" * Owing to the death of ^ head of the monastery.^* Tou have printed rov 6c(ovTov (tfic.; No doubt * the head of the monastery,' Benedict, is meant ; but rov 0c/ov Tov ia * of his uncle.'

" ' Whose subordinate still lives in Athos, to aUest the vfriter," I am not sufficiently versed in Greek monastic arrangements to say what is meant by i ^oTtutris; but I am inclined to think that the other words ^voy^cAA^/Myot r^ KoXXrypi^p are equivalent to ir, rV KoWtypapiKijy, ' professing the art of calligrwhy.'

** * Tare off (ktr^awcurt, dbetraded; see the last paragraph but one), a small part of it privately, and toent his way as if nothing had navpened^* — koX AvtixOcy iat&f6x^Vos» The last words mean, 1 think, ^o^ aioay unMsturhedf as a success- ful burglar (pace Tischendorfii) might be said to do.

" * He perpetrated this great wrong without scruple,^* — ipm riis &{c/ar rip6s ; is., without the leave ofanjf one. I have not a modern Greek dictionary at hand, but I have seen examples m good Greek authors nearly approaching to this use of KScM. Thus the Scholiast on Philostr. Heroic, p. 6, explains ervyxo^tTp by iifua^ ti96pau^

*' ' I have thought it my duty, unasked,-^ It may appear hereafter that this testimonial of Callinicns was not unasked ; it is well to ooserve that he does not say that it was. The free rendering of the words is, *• I have thought it my hounden duty.'

" In the Guardian^ of Dec. 10, Mr. W. A. Wright remarks, sneeringly, on the wonderful coincidence of Cidlinicus being on the spot^ when Tischendorf visited Mount Sinai in 1B44, and again at his second visit in 1853.' But I can- not see anything like this in the letter, as printed by you. The writer only says, in conclusion, that he knows all these things ix rod xkijclov ; that is, i suppose, either intimately, or from my residing in the vicinitu.

** One word more. Simonides speaks of * a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments, published and presented to the Greeks by the illustrious brothers Zosimas.' Upon which you asked — * Is it impossible to ascertain so simple a point as whetner the Moscow booksellers, 2k>simas, sent a copy of the Moscow Bible to the Greeks for their use ?' This is a misunderstanding of Simonides' words. The brothers Zosimas were not booksellers, but weiUthj Sussian merchants, who,^ having obtained leave from the Holv Synod, at their own cost published an option of the Greek Bible at Moscow, thus presenting it to the Greek Church.

** I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

" FssnsaicK Fibld.

'' Be^^am Rectory, Dee. 23, 1862."

* " A curious illustration of this use of the word &8€ia, as well as of Odlinicus^ OffuroTr ko2 oOi^/Jrots lUvois is given bv Mr. Scrivener, Codex Augiensis, p. Ixxix. * Mihi vero fTischendorflus loquitur] SBstate anni 1843, cum concessum esset aliquos codicis (Vat. 2066) versus facsimili exprimere contigit vt in conficiendo facsimili variantes lectiones omnes edition! mese Lipsiensi adscriberem.' "

' He says he saw the MS. in T.'s hands, therefore he must have been on the spot—W. A. W.

222 Miscellanies, [April,

On Jan. 14th the Guardian published a whole series of communica- tions to the following effect : —

"M. SIMONIDES.

" Sir, — The originals of the four letters from Kallinikos, which Simonides for- wards to you for publication, are in my possession, as he has handed them to me, to preserve for the inspection of any gentleman who may incline to examine them* 1 have myself given them very minute examination^ and, as far as my experience in such matters goes, I have no hesitation in pronouncing them to be the genuine productions of some one person, and to have been written at the respective dates assigned to them. Three of them bear postmarks correspond- ing with the MS. dates ; the fourth has been transmitted in an envelope. The handwriting is very much cramped and contracted, so as to be in places almost illegible, but 1 think you may^ rely on the translation as literal and accurate.

** In conclusion, I wish distinctly to remark that I simply hold these letters for the inspection of the curious in such matters, and of those interested in the question of the authenticity of the Codex Sinaiticus, and that whilst I have given my closest and most minute attention to the examination of their external appearance, I do not wish to be understood as taking any part in the controversy, but would request those who have ridiculed the statements of Simonides to come and inspect for themselves these documents, which form, I imagine, if they are what they profess to be, an important link in the evidence.

" JOHK ElJOT HOXXJKIK."

" HaymarC$ Oreen^ West Derby, Liverpool, Jan. 3, 1863."

'* Sir, — Facts are stubborn things, and one simple fact, which I happen to be in a position to establish, knocks aown the beautiful theory of fraud and false- hood at the hands of Simonides which your' correspondent Mr. W. A. Wright has so generously sought to establish in his letter to you of December 10th, which I have seen to-day for the first time. Mr. Wright * has reason to believe that Simonides first became aware of the existence of the Codex Frederico- Augustanus on the 7th of October of the present year (1862),' and thereupon goes into arguments to prove that Simonides (whom he assumes, with a candour worthy of the rest of his letter, to be one witn Kallinikos) had time to transmit this * newly a^tdredfacV to Alexandria and for it to be returned, etc. Alas I for Mr. W. A. Wright and his * reasons to believe.' Simonides first saw the fac- similes of the (X)dex Frederico-Augustanus at my house in the spring of 1861 — some twenty months before the date so kindly set down for his first view by your correspondent. It is only the accident of my being acquainted with the fact that Simonides had seen and studied the Codex at that penod which rescues him from the maliciously ingenious reasoning of Mr. Wright. So much for that gentleman, his reasons, and nis conclusions. £!x pede Herculem.

^* I am no * thick and thin' partisan of Simonides. I should expose an^ fraud of his which I might detect with as unsparing a hand as Mr. Wright himself; but I will not see the public misled bv such unscrupulous speciaipleading as that of your correspondent without calling attention to the falUicy, and to the animus which prompts it. '* John Euot Hodqkih."

" West Derby, Jan. 8, 1863."

*' Sir, — Every one must admire the fair and impartial remarks appended to the letter which you did me the honour to publish on the 10th of December 1862. It is not my fault that I have not sooner replied to your insinuations of complicity with KaUinikos.

** In the month of November I forwarded to my friend Mr. Scott, in Man- chester, for translation, my reply to the letter of Mr. Wright of 5th of November, and with it a copy of one of the letters of Kallinikos, which I send yon to-day for publication.

** I have only this day received a portion of the translation of my reply, and that of the letter has not come to hand at all, so that I am indebted to another hand for its appearance even as early as the present Ume.

1868.] Miscellanies, 228

** If yon will refer to the original yoa will find that KalUnikoe (who certainly knows not a word of English) never asserts that he * read in the Quardian my letter,' but that * he has read what your Jonmal waa the means of making known to the world.' The way in which this came about is very simple. I wrote to Kallinikofi giving him a conjr of my original Greek letter from which the English translation which appeared in your journal was made, and appended the strip containing the article in English. You will see by the subjomed letter what was his reply, and why I wrote to you to ask if his letter had been received, as also I did to the T^imes and Literary Churchman^ but am still without reply horn those papers. My early connexion with Kallinikos will be, in degpree, ascertained by reference to his own letters. It is not for me to bring witnesses to the re- spectability of a man well known in his own country, and whom I have not nought forward as a witness, but who has written to you on his own responsi- bility. It is not on secondary evidence, but on that of the Codex itself, that I rely : but as his name has been associated with mine, it is right that the public should know what I am able to shew them of his acquaintance with the history of the Codex.

" It is quite evident that Mr. W. A. Wright does not know anything of the subjects about which he writes, as his arguments are as weak as toey are maJU- cious. I reserve my reply to him till next week, having already trespassed largely on your space, if I had a good knowledge of the English language, neither he nor any one else would have reason to complain of the tardiness of my replies, but the necessity for translation causes great delay, and engenders many errors. ** C. Simonides."

" Liverpool^ Jan, 3, 1863."

^' Extract from a letter dated Smyrna, 5 (11) Aug., 1858: — " ' . . . These also send thee ffreeting : toe Deacon Hilarion, and thy friends Nicander and Niphon, who lent tnee the Books of Esdras at the time when thou wast preparing in Athos, at the exhortation of my uncle, the present (of the Holy Scriptures) to the glorious Emperor Nicholas. They also wished* to know whether the work was finished, and given to the Emperor, and whether thou wert suitably requited for it ; because they had no certain knowledge about these matters. I told them all about it, and how the manuscript in question is now in Mount Sinai, and how thy indifference (forgive me, my son, for this true statement of mine) frustrated the original intention. I certified them that this MS. of the Scriptures is still preserved in Sinai (as thou also knowest), because I saw it there with my own eyes when I was in the Monastery of St. Catherine in 1845 in the month of July, and handled it with my own hands, and found it very defective, and somewhat changed ; and when I asked the reason, I understood from Grabriel, the keeper of the treasures, that his predecessor had given the manuscript to a Grerman, who visited the monastery in 1844 in the month of May, and who having had the MS. in his hands several days, secretly removed a part of it, and went away during the time that the librarian lay ill, afflicted with a t3rphoid fever. Nothing more could I learn about it, but I hope (if God will) to go next year again into Egypt, and thence to Sinai, when I shall search into all things, and send the result for thy information and that of thy friends.

^* * Farewell, my son, and pardon the garrulity of an old man. — Thy Spiritual Father, ** * 4. kallikikos Uiebomonachos.' "

*'* Biiving seen in the Standard of Monday, May 23, 1859, an account of the discovery at Mount Sinai, I wrote to Kallinikos on the subject, and received from him a letter on which unfortunately I cannot now lay my hand, but which I will publish if I should hereafter find it. This letter, however, not being suffi- ciently explicit, especially as regards the identification of the * newly found *

* " Note of Translator, — I have translated the words — iindviiovfruf, Iva yiy^- Kmvufy wuhed to know: ohtkv fidficuor yiv^aKovaiv, liad no certain knowledge; although the verbs are in the present tense, because the sense seems to demand such a rendering.**

224 Miscellmies. [April,

Ckxlex with my own, I wrote to him again for a more oircnmttantUd etatement, which he gave ia the following letter. C. 8.

'* * + Dear Son in the Lord, Simonides, Grace be to thee and peace from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One God.

" * That master and pupil of all gnile and all wickedness, the German Tischen- dorf, has unexpectedly rushed into thy net : for having inspected in the common library (where it was found a short time ago, and where it was placed by thy spiritoal father Callistratus when he went to Alexandria) the Codex which thou wrotest at Athos, some twenty-two years ago, as a present to the deceased Bmperor of Russia, Nicholas I., at the request of thy wise and distinguished uncle Benedict, and subsequently, going to Constantinople after his death, gayest unfinished to the blessed patriarch Constantius, who sent it to Mount Sinai ^ the Monk Germanus of Sinai, whom thou knowest, and which was afterwards given to the Hieromonachus Callistratus to be compared with the three old Codices of the sacred Scriptures (which thou knowest, and which are kept in the treasury), and was then disregarded because thou didst not make thy ap- pearance at the proper time in Mount Sinai to transcribe it, accordinff to the earnest wish of the patriarch ; he has proclaimed it as genuine, and as the oldest of all the known Codices in Europe of the Old and New Testaments.

** * Alas for the paltsographical knowledge of such as he I And if, O my son, the sages of Western Europe take knowtodee of and criticize matters in the same fashion as Tischendorf, the shallow leader of Leipsic, 1 must say that no true critcism or sound Judgment in antiquarian matters remains there. This manuscript then beiuK thus estimated (as very old) by the German Tischendorf, was snatched away uom the monastery, was afterwards transferred to Cairo, and after a few days was lent to Tischendorf, by the mediation of the Bnssiaii consul in Egypt. And it is said that the restoration of the Codex after its publi- cation was guaranteed by the Russian ambassador in Constantinople. But I do not believe m any promise of the ambassador or the consul for the restoration of the Codex, and even if they did promise it, I do not believe that they would ever restore it to the monastery of Sinai. I judge from previous events. * For a Russian official (as the proverb says), a liar, and a thief, are synonymous.'' Bui let others treat of all this, as also of the arrangements, just or unjust made b^ the Russian consul and the guileful Tischendorf for the accomplishment of their purposes. I am not surprised at any of the circumstances, but only at the ftot that this Codex, recent as it was, and thy handiwork, was ascribed to the fourth century. Here is a miracle forsooth, and yet people sneer at us for believing miracles I This Codex, my son, I saw several times, and particularly three of the acrostics which thou shewedst me at Athos when I overlooked thee in that pleasant writing-room of thine. The first reads thus — K. JU/uwiBov x^p iwtpd' «Kr^/ic; the second— K. A. 4>. 2i/miW8ov* MaK^6yos tfryor 9€4ptvrov Wm^; and the third — 2ttJi6§yt9ov rh Z\oi' ^pyov. I also saw the fourth and fifth, but do not re- member them now ; and also caligraphic symbols, and especially the numenHis corrections, and corrections again of these, and annotations both of thyself and of thy uncle, by which I recognized thy work ; but I said nothing to any one, nor shall I speak of the matter till thou shalt request me ; and for this reason have hastened to ^ive thee the information in the present letter.

* " The Codex in question, as we are now quite certain, was transported to fit. Petersburgh to be published, and Its antiquity was established by the learned there. Now we shall see whether they will endorse the vain talking of Tischen- dorf, whom I have myself seen and uonversed with four times, and whom I found superficial in all things, and quite ignorant of the language of our immortal ancestors. He only chatters mechanically the Scriptures, and understands their meaning by Latin versions, and not at sight ; so that every ancient Greek work which has not been translated is considered by him as hard to understand, and is set down by him as being in the common Greek tongue, which the fooKsh

* "Thus in the letter of Callinicos, but in the MS. K. A. ♦. S^am^^Sov rw MaircSbyof, ic.r.X., as the facsimiles in my possession shew."

1863.] MuceUanie: 225

critics have christened Romaic. And the questions which have heen most clearly settled (aboat Greek palfleoCTaphy) he is quite unacquainted with. In a simple word, he deceived the world by his reputation, as thou hast before re- marked. Now, it is thy business to prove and proclaim the man's real character, and to shew how different it is from what it appears to be.

" Farewell, O son in the Lord, and fight the good fight, and write to me sometimes, that we may hear of thy good deeds in &half of our nation, and our mother the Church, from their author, the faithful son of his country, and not firom others.

*' ^ Alexandria, 9 (O.S.) November of the year 1861.

" * Thy sincere and hearty well-wisher in the Lord,

+ Kallinikos Hiebomomachos.

" *• P.S.^-Hemark this also, that the same man came on another occasion to the monastery of Mount Sinai in the year 1844, in the month of May, and there saw thy Codex, and secretly abstracted many leaves (as I wrote to thee long ago) and went away undisturbed, because, unfortunately, the librarian, who only could have reproved and exposed his wickedness, lay seriously ill, and de- parted shortly after to his rest in heaven. — Thine, Kallinikos.

" * Markos and Dorotheos and Joasaph salute thee ; they are going to-morrow to Jerusalem, and thence to Damascus. I have received all thy books, and have given them to thy friends, therefore be at ease on that question. When art thou coming to Egypt ? Thou knowest that thy presence is urgently required. Come quickly, I entreat thee again, for we are on the eve of great affairs, as thou well knowest. In great haste.' "

*^In reply to my letter enclosing the Greek version of my letter to the QuardiaR: —

^* Extract from a letter dated 5 (17) November, Alexandria: —

" * + My son Simonides, well-beloved in the Lord — I have perused the trmoBlation, or rather the Greek original, of thy letter to the Editor of the Quardian concerning the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex, and I applaud thy love of truth. Bat I am sorry that thou hast omitted many circumstances not essential to the Bubjecty and I fear, on account of the brevity of thy narration, true though it be, there will be many conjectures amongst those who are doubtful of the truth of the matter. I myself also have written, as an eye-witness, to some of the jour- nals of London concerning this question, among othera to the Chuirdian^ to whom I wrote as follows.

" [Here follows the text of the Quardian.^

^ ' Thus 1 wrote to the Editor of the Guardian^ and in almost similar terms to the others, copies of whksh letters I have by me, and will send to thee if they sbooM refuse to publish them (which, however, I can hardly believe) ; so that thou mayst publisn them thyself. Farewell, my son, and inform me of current events. — ^Thy spiritual Father,

*^ * + Kallinikos Hiebomonachob.

"'Alexandria, 5 (17) November, 1862.

" * My Son in the Lord, Simonides — Yesterday, the 5th November fO.S.J of the present year I wrote to thee concisely, in which letter I copied my letter to the Guardian, and I hope that thou wilt receive it safely, for I directed it as thou didst instruct me. To-day it seems to me best to send thee my letter to the London TimeSj and to the Literary Churchman^ that thou mayest have it in thy hands, for who knows what a day may bring forth ? So here follow the copies, and first that of the letter to the Times. [Here follow copies of two letters from Kallinicos to the IHmea and Literary Churchman.] Thus, O faithful chiktof thy country, runs my letter to the Literary Churchman, wherefore, I beg thee, be earnest for their publication, that thou mayest obtain a copy, and com- pare it with the copy in thy hands. And if it be incorrectly translated, and then published, let me know, or else do thou publish the real text of my letter in Greek, and send me a copy of the journal; but let it be quickly, for in the new year (God willing) I shall go to Jerusalem, and thence to Damascus, because the Roman Catholics and the followers of Mohammed have some evil schemes

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. V. Q

226 Miscellanies. [April,

against us. But I wiU write to thee again firom Jerasalem, and send tbee tha copy of the inBcriptions from Bostrn, and Syria, and Palestine. Farewell again and many times, my son in the Lord, and fight the good fight, and write to thy spiritual father. " * -|- Ejlllisikos HiBBOMONACBoe.

" ♦ Alexandria, 6 November, 1862.' »'

** A long postscript follows, containing accounts of hiscriptions diaooTcrod In the preoinots of St. Sabba in Alexandria, which has no bearing en the subjects mentioned in the body of the letter."

On Jan. 21, came out another lengthened series : —

" The Sinaitic Codex is not ancient, but modem. — To the Editor of the Ouar- ^{an, — Sir, having lately read what the ardent defender of the error of Professor Tischendorf wrote on the 5th of November last in the Guardian, I felt surprised at the writer's lack of judgment and discernment. For he swallows a camel and strains at a gnat. He swallows at a gulp the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex, which is entirely modern, possessing no claim to antiquity, along with the false assertions and calumnies of the famous Tischendorf. The chronological errors of the biographers of Simonides, the synoptic narratives and obscure explanations of his accusers, oven typographical errors, the gentleman swallows to enable him to ward off the main point of the truth at issue bj means of such puerile objec* tions. He succeeds in this, it seems, to the satisfaction of the abettors of the deceptive invention of the celebrated Tischendorf. I should despise a writer evidencing such a character, but, inasmuch as he has signed his letter, I deem it my duty to answer him, the better to expose his want of information. First, I say that my revered parents are happily still alive, and say that I was bom in the year 1820, November the 5th, on Sunday, the sixth hour before noon. This circumstance is confirmed hy the certificate of the priest who baptised me, who still lives, a worthy abbot in the monastery of the Taxiarchs m the island of Syme, which is erected in the ancient town called Aigle, and commonly named Michael. This certificate is countersigned by the Senators of the island of Syme, and sealed with the seal of the island, and signed also by the Austrian agent resident there. This certificate, with other documents confirminff all I say, I am ready to shew to any one who desires to see them. In the laoe of anch evidence not another word need be said.

** I was named at baptism Constantino Leonidas Photios, and while still a child, was committed by my parents to learned men for instruction. Residing from boyhood in the house with my learned masters, by whom I waa system** tically instructed, and especially applying myself with great diligence, I soon Justined the hopes of my respected parents and celebrat^ instructors. * For I will speak the truth, and shall not be ashamed,' according to the Apostle. At twelve years of affe I was called young^ Stelokopes, beosose, like Polimon, I passed mv time with the stones, occupying my leisure hours in reading and copying the ancient inscriptions of the Aegina collection. Many of these (abont 200) I copied exactly, and presented my work to one of my teachers, Gregorias Constantas, on his birthday. He accepted them most kindly, kissed me many times, called me young Stelokopes, and made me a present of books, especially of those which he had published in Vienna, one of which, The Letters ofi^fnenutf was issued in 1792. I have preserved it carefully tiU now, and it contains the following presentation note: — 'To Constantino Simonides, the young Stelokopes, good and nonourable youth, obedient, most studious and skilful copyist of the Antiquities of Aegina, this book is presented as a gift by his master Qregorioa Constantas, Aegina, the year of salvation 1832, January Slst/

*' I was also called the golden caligraphic pen, because I transcribed the rules of the college at Aegina in golden letters, and ornamented them with some devices. I also wrote caligraphic exercises for the instruction of my college companions ; not only this, but on the death of Charilaos, our teacher of cali- graphy, I succeeded him with the approbation of the directors of the college, although still very young. I also transcribed the Olynthiaca of Demosthenes in ancient characters, and declaimed them successfully at the public examinations,

1863.] MUceUanies. 227

for whicli I was designated Demosthenic Rhyme, by Philetairoe, PtofeMor of Literatme. I was also called Euclid's Compasses by Rhega, Professor of Mathematics, an embodied Genias by my ancle, an extraordinary Phenomenon by the Patriarch Constantins, Cheirographodephet by the Editors of the TeU- mnhi of ike Bo9]^horu8^ Chalkenteros by the Messenger of the Byzantines, Inoeiatigable mind and pen by my companions, Lyncens by Dindorf, Hand of Daedalus by the Editors of the Amena^ published at Athens, and by many others of whom it is needless to speak at present. Alexander V. Humboldt named me * a liTinff enigma and indissoluble Gordian knot,' as C. Stewart, the journals — the Dial, January 17, 1862, and Bath Chnmide, March 13, 1862, report.

" On this account, then, some persons endeavoured to solve the enigma and untie the Gordian knot, but unfortunately rendered it still more difficult by accepting, as a solution of the question, rumours and unfounded assertions.

** Some of these also undertook to write my history during my lifetime — ^first, Professor Tischendoif ; secondly, a certain Lycourgos, for a long time a spy of Tiachendorf, living upon me ; thirdly, a certain German, who had become a mercenazy slave of Tischendorf ; and, fourthly, Mr. Charles Stewart, who under- took his work for truth's sake, but said nougnt to me of it until it had been sent to press, and the greater part already printed ; thus even he committed not a Uw errors, for which I hold myself in no degree responsible, any more than for thoee of the other writers, some of whom (denying their inspiration from sources unknown to me) state that I was bom on Mount Athos, whereas at Athos no women are to be found, neither is a woman allowed, under any pretence, to visit Mount Athos, because this place was consecrated of old by the monks for retire- ment. Others say that I am •Archbishop of the Island of Rhodes ; some set me down as eighty-seven years of age, married, and the father of twenty-four ehildren, four feet high, having hands of extraordinary length. Some agam say that I am firom Trebizond, Byzantium, Cappadocia, (Messa, Patara, Acanthus, Rhodes, and have a countenance very beautiful, and like the fabulous Narcissus. Borne write that I am a native of Aoyssinia, because I have a very dark com- plexion. Each wrote and said what he pleased.

"^ It is not needful to answer such ridiculous stories, seeing that both friends and foes testify unanimously to their beiuff absurd and unfounded.

** My having presented to some of my friends copies of Mr. Charles Stewart's hiograptiy of myself is no evidence of its correctness, as Mr. W. A. Wright asserts, for I bought with ray own money fifty copies of the trifles written sgainst me by Ljcourg^, inspired by Tischendorf, and other pamphlets written against me by his art, and distributed them to my friends and enemies. I have acted similarly now,, having taken ten copies of the Ouardian^ of the 5th of November, containing the letter concemmg the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex, and having presented them to my friends : wherefore if you suppose this to be a con- ftnnation of your letter, I say to you, withdraw from the society of men, for you do not possess a sound judgment. And now know, zealous defender of the pKudo-Sinaitic Codex, that I will not give an answer to what any one may write lor or against me, but I will defend whatever I have written or shall write in Greek, Carian, Lycian, Persian, etc., because these are the only languages ttnfortunately which I understand, not knowing any of the modem tongues accurately. Thus because my treatises, letters, and writings have been com- posed in Greek, and afterwards translated, I have been falsely interpreted, often mdeed in the most trivial mattters, as was the case lately in my letter concerning the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex, which appeared on the 3rd of September ; for many things in my letter had been omitted and many altered, hence occasion was given for censure. Such disputes, however, have no importance with regard to toe principal Question at issue. But because some observations of the frivolous defenders of tne pseudo-Sinaitic Codex would fain lead us to believe that I con- templated receding from my statement respecting the genuineness of the manu- script, I am obli^ to say briefly the following, paiiicuhirly in reply to Mr W. A. Wright.

** First, that my uncle Benedict, being by profession a theologian, and versed in twelve languages, intending to publish both the Old and New TesUments,

Q 2

228 Miscellanies. [April,

and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers with exegetic scholia of the ancient commentatora, and specially to reply to what had been written against the Septuagint, began this work while Professor in the College of Cydon in the year 1784. Having removed to Mount Athos in 1819 for the sake of retirement, and embraced the monastic life in the monastery of Esphiffmenos, he was named Benedict (for surely they who adopt the monastic life ought to change themseWes and their names as well as their lives), having formerly had two names, Basi- laeus and Bessarion. While at Athos he gave himself up particularly to the study of the sacred Scriptures. He collected the most ancient MSS. of both Testaments and of their commentators, and at considerable expense prepared his work for the press. The Greek revolution interfered ; he withdrew after a little time to the island of Hydra, thence to Cythera, then to Petzaris, and finally to Calaurrea, now Pares, where there is a famous monastery of the Virg'in, in which he remained a long time teaching theology to twelve Greek youths, by command of Capo d'Istrias, &:ovemor of Greece. jAfter the assassination of the

Sovemor, he again removed to Mount Athos, where he continued until hia eath. I was then sojourning at Aegina, and thence set out to Nauplia, thence to Syme, Syra, back to Aegina, and other places. I also visited Mount Athos in 1837, in which year the discovery of the library took place. I remained fourteen months at Mount Athos increasing my theological knowledge under my uncle, at the same time studying, scientincally, palseography and archeology.

^* When I say scientincally, I do not mean what Mr. Wright understands, but what he does not comprehend, and concerning which he is silent.

" I was taught the means of knowing the ancient MSS. of every period and of every nation, their changes from time, also the knowledge of the skins, and the chemical preparation w the different writing-inks ana the effects of the atmospheric changes of the different climates of the world. Further, I acquired the knowledge of the preparation of the skins of every city of the ancient nations, and such other information as is requisite with regard to the indisputable evi- dence both of the spuriousness and genuineness or MSS. of every kind ; which information it is to be regretted is not possessed by any of the archaeologists and palsographers of our day, as I was sufficiently assured by many circumstances, first and last, and more especially lately when the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex ap- peared.

** The discovery of the above-mentioned library induced my uncle to establish a printing-press at Athos for the dissemination of the various unpublished MSS. and those which he was preparing for publication.

" For this purpose I was urged by him to ^o to Athens, and provide there everything requisite for printing. I went and placed myself under the direction of A. Caromela for a sufficient time, he being then the first printer in Athens, and on this account also some spoke disrespectfully of me. I wrote to my uncle from Athens duly, that it was impossible for anyone to obtain a proper printing- press in Greece, oecause the GreeKs themselves procured from France every requi- site for printing. Being assured of this by others also, he recalled me to Athos. I sailed from the Piraeus in the month of November, 1839, and landed again at Athos for the fifth time. After a few days I undertook the task of transcribing the Codex, the text of which, as I remarked before, had many years previously been prepared for another purpose. But Benedict, as well as the principals of the monastery, wishing to recognize with gratitude the munificence of the Emperor Nicholas on the one hand, and desiring on the other to acquire a print- ing-press without expense, and being unable otherwise to effect these purposes, decided that a transcript of the sacred Scriptures should bo made in the ancient style, and presented as a gift to the Emperor Nicholos, and he found that all the heads of the monastery perfectly^ agreed with him.* Accordingly, having again revised the books ready for publication, and first Genesis,^ he gave it to me to transcribe.

a (* Dr. Tregelles in the Guardian of Au^st 13 says that in three days onhr he went through the MS. of the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex, examined it, compared it with other MSS., and copied several parts. This was blindly believed by «yeTy

1863.] Miscellanies. 229

** I andertook this work, then, not as a tyro, but as (me versed in the ancient writing ; for before this work, as I have mentioned above, I had written the Olynihacg of Demosthenes in ancient characters, and had copied at -twelve years of age the ancient inscriptions in the Aegina collection, besides four of the ser- vices at Mount Athos, in 1837, in golden letters, ancient and modem, as well as the service of St. Pantaloon in golden characters. These services, especially, the professional caligraphist of the monastery, Dionysius, could not imitate com- pletely, for he was a copyist but not an archaiographer, and therefore could not execute other writing but what he had been taught from boyhood — round and clear penmanship. He was, moreover, unacquainted with the ancient Greek language, and altogether ignorant of ornamentation, on which account 1 often wrote the ornamental work, titles and capital letters of works which he trans- scribed, for which he usually styled me Chrysographer, so that this good Diony- sius had simply the work of transcribing the ecclesiastical books — for at Athos they generally appreciate written books more than the printed copies which come from foreign parts — but he knew not caligraphy properly, although taught from childhood. And although I had a peculiar inclmation for it, as well as for all the fine arts, I never became a professional caligraphist,. because I had always more important and Independent occupations in hand. But I was compelled to understand this work — ^first, to gratify my uncle ; secondly, as no one was there at hand at Athos to execute it ; and thirdly, which was the most important to me, in the hope of obtaining the present of a printing-press. To these motives may be added my youthful ambition to become first of ail at Mount Athos in the / Jprofession of caligraphy, which actually came to pass, , /

*' On account of all these circumstances 1 undertook the work, and began immediately after the resignation of Dionysius to study the principles of cali- graphy, as much as was needed. I do not mean that 1 began then to learn caligraphy (as Mr. T. Silke, my translator, has incorrectly interi)reted my words), hat that I learned the art of preparing suitable materials for writing — the proper ink, the making of bone pens, the polishing of the skins, the cleaninc^ by chemi- cals of a few leaves soilea by time, the careful and proper division of the columns, the adoption of the style of writing, and such other things as are proper to archsB- ography. All these things belong to the graphic art.

'^ Besides, tne penmanship of the Sinaitic Codex is my more usual style ; for in writing to patriarchs, arphoisbops, ministers, and men of high rank I adopted the same mode of writing with great facility, as you yourself write in the style which yon learned from childhood. I wrote letters not long since in the same style with a common pen and upon ordinary paper to the Editor of the Guardian; to Professor Shillito of Cambridgej Mr. Henry Bradshaw, keeper of MSS. in the nniversity library of Cambridge ; and to others, concerning whom I shall speak elsewhere. To Mr. H. Bradshaw I wrote as follows : —

" ' Dear Sir— They who believe the Sinaitic Codex to be ancient are deceived, for I am the worker of the miracle, and many of the witnesses are still alive. Farewell.— Christ's College, Oct. 7, 1862.'

" I wrote also to others two years ago, in the same writing, opposing the pseudo-Sinai tic Codex. Therefore, what you consider impossible I deem of no account. For you know that the works of Raphael and Phidias are considered by other men to be superhuman, but are spoken of by their authors as mere toys of the hand.

" If you doubt my ability in such matters, which both enemies and friends STe forced to acknowledge, your friend. Dr. Tischendorf, even, says as follows : — 'Simonides received an excellent education, and, when a young man, spent 4 considerable time in the Greek monasteries at Mount Athos, occupying himself almost exclusively in the study of ancient MSS., by means of which, especially,

one, although I am sure from what he says that he possesses a very superficial knowledge of such matters. Surely if Dr. Tregelles could perform such a Her- cajean work in three days, could not ray uncle, a man of acknowledged learning and experience in such matters, re-peruse his work while I was tranRcribing the b'^ok of Genesis ?"

230 MUceUanief, [April,

lie greatly enriched his knowledge of the Greek and E^ptian antiquities. At the same time he employed himself yery much in drawmg and lithography, in which he hecame very skilful ; and this skill was turned to account afterwards, when he copied the ancient MSS. Moreover, by vigorous study and many voyaces in Asia and Africa, Simonides arrived at the climax of su|»eriority in philology, particularly in the knowledge of the wonderful art of ancient MSS.' These statements M. Tischendorf proclaimed at Leinsic on the 3rd of February, 1856, through the German newspapers, from whicn it was published then at Berlin in a pamphlet entitled Jttagment of Simonides^ of which I still possess a copy.

** You adduce to us the shortness of the time as a forcible argument, saying that it is wholly impossible for any one to copy in a few months the whole pseudo- Sinaitic Codex. I admit that, according to your judgment it may be so, but according to mine — I, who am called Daedalus by some of the journals, it is quite possible, and by no means laborious ; for I could write ^'ve pages <k this pseudo-Sinaitio Codex daily, and in the space Of ten months I will give you 1,500 pages. I know that I wrote 1,205 pages in eight months, and ceased from the work only because the skins failed. If you doubt this, * Lo, here is Rhodes, here is the lean,' according to the proverb. Deposit 10,000Z. sterling in my name in the Bank or England, and I will write again this same work in your presence, and in the presence of your friends, in the same space of time. Then take the manuscript and let me take the money ; but if I fail, which is impossible, I will give you such an ancient MSS. as you choose from those which 1 possess.

" Benedict died at the time Mr. Stewart says, and I set out to Syrae after three months for the sake of dis{>elling my jprief on the death of my unde, bringing with me, in a ship belonging to my Uimily, the manuscript liDrary to my father's house. Thence I went to Constantinople, and again retumea to Mount Athos, after a few days ; but the works never left out of my hands until the skins failed. Afterwards I added many corrections which my uncle had made, and returned the second time to Constantinople from Athos.

** For this reason the writing and ink vary a little ; many of the notes betne written with different ink and pens, and with less care. Still you wonder and say, *' How was it possible for a mere child, under fifteen years of age, to pro- duce such a large MS. ?" (I was really nearly twenty years old.) I equally wonder at Hermogenes from Tarsus, who at fifteen composed his famous treatise on Rhetoric, which was justly admired by the rhetoricians older than he, and is still admired by all, as a production of incomparable power. This Hermogenes at fifteen became the teacher of the great .rhetoricians of his time. And yet I transcribed a prepared work, bein^ nineteen years of age, while Hermogenes composed a very learned work, being younger than I. Further, I wonder at Sophocles, who, while a boy, vanquished his tragic master, ^schylus, although at first instructed by him. I wonder equally at the painter, Raphael, who, while young, was able to ascend on the scale of art to a wonderful height of glory, to enter into the temple of immortality, and salute Apelles Zeuxis and Pauselenus, and be enrolled in the assembly of the immortal painters of antiquity, leaving behind him works which may be justly considered divine. I wonder, also, that my own brother, Photius, younger than I, was able to distinguish himself in the graphic art, and to excel his senior schoolfellows so as to receive fh>m the appointed judges the golden prize.

** But you need not such examples, for they abound in ancient*and modem history, knowing this, I say to you again that the MS. of the Sacred Scrip- tures taken from Mount Sinai by Tischendorf is my production, and by no means ancient.

" The Codex proclaims this itself, as shall be afterwards shewn when my proofs will speak for themselves. Words are therefore needless.

«< Truly I wonder how people can credit such unreasonable falsehoods, things wholly impossible, and believe the reports of Tischendorf— viz., that I prepared

1868.] MiBcellankM. 231

ooRnpted texts of yanoas oUssical writers, filled up many blanks of injured ancient MSSb, and wrote and prepared papvri I And all this in a very limited ■paoe of time, for whiob work a liie of two thousand years would not suffice me, had I two thousand hands, and one thousand [heads ?J. Yet they consider it a wonder to have made a simple copy of a manuscript of the Old and New Testa- ment, done by me in my juvenile years. O wonder of wonders I

** Yon prepared yourself, my dear Sir, for the defence of the Sinaitic Codex, by swallowing indiscriminately all the falsehoods concerning its discovery, told by your famous Tischendorf. But what scientific proofs have you to condrm its genuineness ? Certainly none : neither do I expect such from you nor from your friend Tischendorf, for neither you nor he possess the true knowledge of paliMgraphica! science. Yon have only learned to say at random, this is genuine, and this is spurious, but yon do not know the reason. But although I possess many proofs of the spuriousness of the manufloript, I shall keep silent on these for the present. First, because I intend to write a special work on the inbject, and secondly, because the Codex will prove this itself when published, and the portion already published partly shews this, and if you understood the twofold signification of the note wnich exists at the end of the fourth column of the eighth page of the pseudo-Friderico- Augustine Codex, you would repent of what both yon and your patrons have stirred up against me inconsiderately.

** Now I give you the translation of the letter of a holy and virtuous man, that you may be certain also from it of the spuriousness of the Codex of which you have unfortunately become the blind champion. ( Vick Jan. 14, 1863 ; and the L, C, Jan. 16, 1863, and Dec 16, 1862)

*' What, then, have yon to oppose to the evidence of living men occupying the exalted rank of priesthood, O sealons defender of the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex ? Other testimony I shall adduce after a little, and shall prove palpably the folly of yourself and patrons. Do yon disbelieve the attestations of the Patriarchs, Archimandrites, and monks of the Eastern Church ? If you are still incredu- lous, I say to you, remain faithful in your faithlessness. And I, for my part, by no means care from henceforth about this. I have proclaimed the truth, although well I know that such truth has both very great and disagreeable results. It behoves me, however, to speak, because my conscience itself, and education, which even Mr. Tischendorf admires, as shewn above, and the Church to which I belong — TIE., the Greek, occupying the first rank among the Churches from which the ffrace of truth issued and spread abroad— do not permit me to conceal the truth in any manner ; for I will answer as I should to the AH seeing God Bi the Day of Judgment. Therefore, I said I have spoken, I have no sin. —

*' Wholly yours, "C. Simohides.

'* London, 2 Caroline-street, Bedford-square, Jan., 1868.''

u gjs^ — ^t the risk of again * amusing ' you, I venture to suggest that yon have hardly appreciated at its true value the bearing of the letters which you have pablished in your last impression.

** Fermit me very briefly to recall to your recollection the facts. A letter vouching for the truth of the narrative of Simonides reached you from Alexan- dria. Correspondents hostile to Simonides at once suggested that the professed author of that letter, Kallinikos, was no other than Simonides himself in dis- guise, and ingenions calculations were entered into to prove that there had been tune for him, since he had been put upon his trial in England, to send out tnstmctions to Egypt, and to have the forged voucher for his veracity returned to you. On the Siee of it, one would say that such a device, if resorted to, was the sudden and improvised expedient of an almost desperate man.

" Bnt at this point of the controversy turn up no less than four letters from the same Kallinikos (bearing the same signature, at an^ rate, as the recent letter to the editor of the Literary Churchman^ as I can testify myself^, written at various dates from the year 1858 to 1861, and giving evidence by their post- marks of having been really posted at those dates. I submit that the fact of the existence of these letters, aU certainly wriUen by the Bamepersan^ whoever he Bay be, and especially of the letter dated Augost 5 (17), 1868, k>ng before the

232 MisceUantes. [Aprils

publication of Tischendorfs Btatement as to his discoTery of the * Codez Sinai- ticus/ throws fresh light upon the whole question, and should secure for the Hieromonachos a more respectful hearing than some of your correspondents are disposed to allow him.

" Whether my last letters to you were * Irish ' in their character, I will not now discuss. I can only say that nothing but the English loye of fair play first led me to enquire into the character and hietory of a man whom for years I knew of only as * the notorious Siraonides,' but whom subsequent investigation shewed me to be oppressed by the unfair treatment of antagonists.

" To the same instinctive love of justice on your part I appeal, to give die facts recently brought forward, whatever weight they really deserve ; and repeating that I shau be most happy to exhibit the orieinal letters to any reader of your paper, clerical or lay, who may favour me with a call here,

'* I am, yours truly, " John Euot HoneKnr.

** West Derby, near Liverpool."

** Sir, — Mr. Hodgkin seems to imagine that his letter dooms me to annihila- tion. He has upset my facts, shewn the weakness of my reasoning, and exposed my animua. I am so much of an Englishman, however, as not to know wnen I am beaten, and, so far from being discomfited bv Mr. Hodgkin's withering scorn, I am ready to continue the fight, and to hail him as an ally. He has supplied me with a fact which materially strengthens my case. I had come to the conclusion, for reasons which I will now give, that before the 7th of October, 1862, Simonides was unacquainted with the Codex Friderico-Augustauus, which is known to be a part of the same MS. as the Codex Sinaiticus.

"1. On the 7tii of October, 1862, Simonides came into the Cambridge Univer- sity Library. The facsimile of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus was put before him. Every one who is acquainted with that MS. knows that at the end of 2 Esdras, and again at the end of Esther, is a note to the effect that it had been compared with the extremely ancient copy corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus. Simonidles was asked, ^ Have you at Mount Athos the very copy which Pamphilus himself corrected ?'* He was unable to answer at the time, but came next day with a lame story that they had, not the original of Pamphilus, but a copy.

*' 2. He was asked, ^ How is it, if your MS. was deposited at Mount Sinai in 1841, that within two years and a half— that is, by May, 1844— it was found in the mutilated condition described by Tischendorf r This he could not explain.

" 3. Simonides, in his letter to the Guardian of the 3rd of September, 1863, claims to have seen his own MS. again in 1852. He simply says it was * mnch altered, havinff an older appearance than it ought to have.' In 1840 he had had it newly bound. In 1844 it was entirely disintegrated, every vestige of binding hnd disappeared, and large proportions of the MS. were lost. Had he seen the MS. in 1852, he could not have described its condition as he has done.

" For these reasons I came to the conclusion, which was shared bv others, that at the time Simonides was in Cambridge, and certainly at the time he wrote his first letter to the Ouardian, he was not aware that so long ago as 1844 Tischendorf had brou&^t a portion of the same MS. to Europe and published it in 1846 as the Codex Fridenco-Augustanus. I submit to you. Sir, that my in- ference was not * maliciously ingenious,' but natunU and legitimate. It now appears that so long ago as the spring of 1861, Simonides had *■ seen and studied ' the Codex Friderico-Augustanus at Mr. Hodgkin's own house. This does not make the case of Simonides any better. If; so long ago as the spring of 1861, he had seen and studied the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, how is it that it was not till the autumn of the following year that he put forth his claim to be the scribe ? I infer that he could not have known the Codex Friderico-Augustanus and the Codex Sinaiticus to have been one and the same MS. If he had written the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, he must have recognized it. If he did not re- cognize it, the inference is that he did not write it. If he both wrote it and re- cognized it, it is inconceivable that he should have maintained a profound silence regarding it for a year and a half. My inferences are the natural result of

1863.]

Miscellanies. 283

l^moiiides' own conduct in the matter. Tiscbendorf asks, " Why did not Simon^ ides, who was in Leipsic in 1856, then and there recognize as his own work the Codex Friderico-Angustanns, which is in the university library ?' He anwers his own question, * Because he would have been put into the nearest madhouse/ " If any one will take the trouble to read my letters to the Guardian care- fully, he will see that the fact of 8imonides having been aware of the existence of the Codes Friderico-Augustanns before October, 1862, is by no means destruo- tive to my argument. The rest of my case is unaffected by it. We hear no- thing of "Asohendorrs visit to Mount Bmai in Bimonides' letter written in Sept. We do hear it for the first time on his side in the letter of Kallinikos written at the end of October. I wanted to shew the possibility of complicity between Bimonides and Kallinikos, and Bimonides has proved this for me beyond a doubt. Mr. Hodgkin's letter does not convince me that the rest of my theory is untrue, or that my argument is special pleading.

" As he speaks of my antmtM, I will explain what this is. An absent scholar is charged with a base and impudent literary fraud. It is even insinuated that he is a thief. I have thought it my duty, while many, like Mr. Hodgkin, are so tenderly careful of the reputation of his accuser, to do my best to rebut the calumny. I would call attention to the fact that, since the first letter of Kalli- nikos, the charge against Tiscbendorf has assumed a different complexion. It was at first a charge of ignorance : Tiscbendorf, himself deceived, was about to publish as a work of the fourth century one which had been written by a living man. Now, however, it is insinuated that Tiscbendorf knew the MS. to be the writing of Bimonides, and removed the traces of his handiwork : he is accused, therefore, of the grossest and most impudent fraud. Believing him to be inno- cent, I shall endeavour to expose his accuser. This, Sir, is my animtu. If Af r. Hodgkin wishes to examine the animru of Simonides, he will find it explained by certain transactions at Leipzig and elsewhere in 1856.

" Permit me now to make a few remarks on the letters of Kallinikos which are printed in your journal this week. I confess I am still sceptical as to the existence of Kallinikos in the flesh : he appears to be a sort of Mrs. Harris to Simonides. The only one of his letters which possesses the least value as evi- dence is that bearing date 1858. About this I should wish to be further informed, and shall probably have some remarks to make next week. The others prove, what I was not certain of before, a correspondence between Simonides and Kal- linikos, and entirely destroy the worth of the latter as an independent witness, in which character he at nrst came forward. By Simonides' own admission, they were written at his request. The first which Kallinikos wrote was not circumstantial enough : Bimonides asked him to write another, and this is cir- camstantial with a vengeance. It is the merest echo of Simonides' own state- ment, but is characterized by a splenetic and venomous malignity against Tis- chendorf which I have never seen equalled. I submit. Sir, that this is not evi- dence against Tiscbendorf or for Simonides, but clearly proves complicity between Btmonides and Kallinikos, admitting the existence of the latter. This letter is dated 9th Nov., 1861, O.S., and I would especially caU your attention to the fact that it is in the poaUcript and not in the letter that Tiscbendorf 's visit to Mount Binai in 1844 is mentioned. I shall probably have occasion to refer to this hereafter. The silly assertion that Tiscbendorf knows Greek only through the medium of Latin translations may be left to refute itself; but it is precisely what Simonides said of Tiscbendorf at Cambridge in October last.

" I find my theory that Kallinikos is a constant reader of the Guardian and TJierary Churchman is without foundation. Bimonides tells us that Kallinikos knows not a word of English. Why, then, I ask, did he send him the strip of the Guardian containing his letter in English ? And why does Kallinikos, in his letter of 5th (17th) November, 1862, niake the awkward slip, 'I have perused the translation, or rather Vie Greek oriffinaly of thy letter?' Again, why does Kallinikos, who, according to Simonides' own account, only appears to know of the letter to the Guardian, instantly dash off letters in defence of Bimonides, not only to the Guardian, but to the T^mes and Literary Chwchman? The difficulties in Simonides' case increase at every step. Kallinikos has already

284 Miicellames. [April,

Heoured his retreat. He is off to Jerusalem, and is going on to Damasoos. I woald reoommend Simonides to join him before it is too late.

" Simonides complains that his ijniorance of English has prevented him from answering my letters before. Mj first letter to the Ouardian was published on 5th Noremberf 1862. This Mr. Hodgkin does not appear to have seen. The letter of Simonides is dated 3rd January, 1863. Sorely, in two months he ooold have had my letter translated to him, and a translatioa made of his own reply. My letter was in his possession before the end of November, as appears by his own acknowledgment in yoor columns, dated 17th (29th) November, 1862. He cannot complain that he has not had time enough.

" I am watching with great interest the gradual development of Simonidea* story. It is interesting to mark the accretions by which the simplicity of his original narrative is being disfigured.

" Trinity College, CamSridge, Jan, 17, 1863. W. A. WRiOBr.

** P.S.— I add a translation of part of Tischendorrs letter to the AUgemeins Zeitung of 22nd Dec , 1862, in reference to the claim put forward bv Simonides: —

** ' The splendid four-volume edition of the MS. just publishea .... will con- vince every sceptic who is capable of forming a conclusion on the question that Simonides could have selected no more unfortunate object for his daring inven- tions. He professes to have taken a Moscow edition of the Bible as the ground- work of comparison with the MSS. of Mount Athos. But, in the New Testament alone, the Smaitic text differs in many thousand places from all the Moscow editions, and from all MSS. written in the last thousand years ; while it stands io some instances alone, and in others has for its companions only the Vatican and Cambridge MSS., and contains many readings wnich must have appeared gross heresies in a copy prepared for the orthodox Czar. But in the Old Testa ment, for example, the text of Tobit and Judith is of an entirely different recen- sion, which is still preserved, particularly in old Latin and old Syriac documents. How were these formed from the Moscow edition, or how were they introduced into it?' "

Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Dioceses. — In oonseqnence of the scantiness of contemporary records during the first three centuries, it becomes an important consideration, while searching out the number and extent of Dioceses in the Ante-Nioene period of the church, to ascertain how far we may take later notUia as guides to infer the previous condition of affairs. The reader will at once perceive that if we were to adopt them immediately, without discrimination as to which of those enumerated were later, and which were earlier sees, we should necessarily fall into error, and vitiate our whole argument. And yet, if judiciously employed, these nolituB will prove of great use.

In considering this point, it is to be noted, that the tendency of later episcopal sees is to a larger jurisdiction than the earlier. By tendency, is not meant that history proves it to be a fact (for the truth of this is the very point under discussion, and is not to be assumed at the outset), but that the very circumstances, under which later sees are established, are necessarily of such a nature, that, unless special care is taken care to pre- vent it, they will ordinarily result in extensive episcopal jurisdiction.

The most populous and intelligent communities would naturally attract the first efforts of evangelists ; for among them the doctrines of the Gospel could be proclaimed to the largest numbers. Usually, such populous districts would, in consequence, be the first to embrace the Gospel. Among them cities would be nomerous, and, whether or not a

1868.] MiscellanieM. 386

bisbop were placed in each, the large total population woold soon require a proportionate unmber of bishops to exercise any effectual oversight. Places difficult of access, and but thinly peopled, would, in the order of nature, be converted in a much later period. In these there would ordi- narily be but few bishops, at first perfaap itinerant, but finally settled, respectively in the ordinary abiding places of the different tribes ; while, between the sees thus established, would be extensive wildernesses, utterly uninhabited by any fixed population. The bishop's authority, being co-extensive with the limits of the tribe to which he was attached, would naturally extend with its increase in numbers, and gmdually cover a share of the intervening territory, and, when jurisdiction is thus once established, it is difficult, except under peculiar circumstances, to divide it.

These remarks apply, particularly, to the spreading of the Gospel in central and northern Europe. For the records of the earliest labours of bishops in those countries, in very many instances, give us, not cities as the titles of their jurisdictions, but the names of tribes. Wheu Christian teachers went forth into the wilds of that extensive region, there were but few cities or even villages. For many years the missionary bishop, with his staff of clergy, were all sufficient for the scattered and roving population. No fixed character could possibly be given, either to the episcopal or parochial limits. Even the villages were not permanent, except in those infrequent instances in which the residence of a few Boman merchants, for the purposes of trade, gave a more settled character to the place* Under such circumstances it was natural for these latter towns to be con* stituted Episcopal Sees, since, by taking advantage of the avenues of trade, which all centred at those points, they might have more ready access into the interior, while at the same time they were able to sustain a more intimate communion with the rest of the church. From these causes, an extensive jurisdiction arose, more, perhaps, in the beginning, over the clergy engaged in missionary labours, than over the people.

While the church was thus in its infancy in a large part of Europe, an institntion arose, in connexion with the civil relations of the people, which tended to confirm the bishops in the possession of large sees, and increased the difficulty of division so much, as to render it almost impossible, except at the mandate of a despotic and irresistible ruler. The influence of the feudal system was felt in a twofold direction. Its military character, and legalizing of the law of might, prevented any rapid growth in the number of cities. The great builders of cities throughout the world have been trade and commerce, and these cannot flourish where violence is tolerated. In every community, personal security was the first consideration. Hence too great ease of access was a disadvantage, and the very places most convenient for commerce were least capable of defence. The natural increase in the trading community consequently crowded into those cities already established, in preference to being at the expense and delay of erecting enormous fortifications in new localities, and without such defences experience taught them their property was wholly insecure. The feudal system operated in another way to maintain the undivided extent of dioceses, however large they may have been. The bishops,

236 Miscellanies. [Aprils

almost as a matter of necessity, became temporal lords, in order that, by the control of a military body, they might ensure the protection of their own rights and the property of the church. Having assumed such a position, any division of their spiritual jurisdiction, being apparently con- nected with the division of civil allegiance, and diminishing their security, was attended with almost insuperable difficidties.

The general conclusion, from this rapid survey of the western world, is, that after the sixth century the tendency was rather to consolidate dioceses than to divide them. While, in the East, the internal contest against heresy and schism, and the external pressure of the Saiacena, which, before the middle of the seventh century, began to be severely felt, prevent us from anticipating any change in that quarter, except the de- struction and weakening of sees already established. These sees, being severally weakened, became affiliated, and thus new and larger ones were the product. Thus, in the Eomish Church, we find Romish titles without jurisdiction; while, in the reformed Church of Ireland, we see ten episcopal sees blotted from existence at a single blow, some of them dating from a period before the Conquest. In the interval between the fourth and seventh centuries, intimately connected as the church was with the civil power, arrayed in outward pomp and entrusted with much of civil authority, it is a fair presumption, that no power once enjoyed was voluntarily relinquished, and that, in consequence, except under peculiar circumstances, the extent of episcopal jurisdiction, once established, remained unchanged.

What are those peculiar circumstances which operated to increase the number of sees, or made changes in their limits and respective rank f

Villages were in some instances promoted to be cities or sees, for the following reasons : — 1st. From an increase in population and importance. But this reason is of such a nature as to leave its mark upon civil history, so that, where any such new dioceses have been formed, they are readily detected. 2nd. In districts almost desert, where, for hundreds of miles, only a few scattered hamlets exists, some have of necessity been made episcopal sees, as for instance on the outskirts of Libya. In seeking the ordinary limits of ancient Dioceses, all difficulty on this score may be avoided, by taking into consideration those regions only containing at least the average density of population. 3rd. In some instances, in later times, the number of bishops has been increased, to carry some party measure in a provincial council ; or, 4th, to increase the importance of some metropolitan or patriarch, by his having a greater number of suflfragans. These last two ai*e of such a nature as to require a large addition made at once, and, from the jealousy and contention giving rise to and accompanying the measure, could not fail to be handed down to us by those who opposed it. The few instances of which we have record, may safely be assumed to be all that have ever existed.

Another change, though not increasing the number of bishops, it may be well to note in this connexion. Certain cities were, from time to time, promoted to higher episcopal rank; the occupants of those sees being elevated from simple bishops to metropolitans, exarchs, or patriarchsv Tins was done in accordance with a change in the civil rank of the cities,

1863.] Miscellanies. 237

83 in the notable instance of Constantinople, which, having become the residence of the Roman Emperor, was exalted to an equal ecclesiastical rank with the old capital. Sometimes higher rank was conferred, out of respect to the prominent position of a city in ecclesiastical history, as in the case of Jerusalem^ which was made a patriarchate.

From this brief discussion of the extension of the church, and of the settlement and changes of episcopal sees throughout the world, we may draw the general conclusion, that we may safely make use of later noiitia, provided it be done with due discrimination as to the various exceptions and difficulties above enumerated. Of course, after our best endeavours, some portion of doubt will still exist, as to the comparative date of certain sees ; and the earlier the notitia upon which we rely, the greater the pro- bability of accuracy. The limits within which there is probability of error, will, however, so affect the number of sees in any given region as not materially to modify their average extent, even after the greatest pos- sible allowance for error has been made.

With this preliminary discussion, we will proceed to inquire into the records of history, to ascertain, as nearly as may be, the actual extent of dioceses during the earlier and purer days of the church, and, we may add, when her zeal and single eye to her Saviour's glory and the salvation of men approached most nearly to that of the apostles. We must of necessity select particular provinces for comparison. Those will be taken of which we have the fullest account. In each district the sees which are positively known to have existed at the assumed date, and those cities which, from sufficient evidence, are supposed to have possessed a bishop, will be separately enumerated, and all conclusions based upon the former. The latter are adduced simply to add force to the argument. We know sufficient positively to assert that ancient dioceses were very small, com- pared with those of modem origin. We have reasonable grounds to be persuaded that they were much smaller than we can actually prove them.

What is the actual extent of ancient dioceses, as shewn by well authenticated and trustworthy records ?

During the first century, contemporary records are extremely scanty, hot eveB for that period we are not left without a clearly defined and reasonable conclusion. Our authorities are necessarily only the sacred writings of the New Testament, and the apostolic fathers. We may, however, draw well-founded inferences from subsequent aiithors, and enlarge the list of sees, making them approach the number that probably existed. The province of which we have the fullest record is that called Asia, or, more precisely speaking, Asia proconsularies. Its extent, accord- ing to the limits assigned by Archbishop Ussher, was about two hundred and fifty miles on the ^gean Sea, and not above one hundred and fifty miles in average width, containing an area of about thiiiy thousand square miles. According to the account given by St. Luke of the journey- ing of St. Paul, contained in the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, the province of Asia would seem, at that time, to have been restricted within much narrower limits. St. Paul took ship at Assos, and the next place at which he stopped, upon the main land, was Miletus, at the same time he declared his reason for passing by Ephesus, because he

238 Miscellanies. [April,

would not spend his time in Asia. The whole coast of that provinoe, we must hence infer, was included between those two cities, which are less than fifty miles apart. So that, according to St. Paul, Asia could not ha?e contained more than twenty thousand square miles.

To ascertain the number of churches in this province over which bishops presided, we have, in the first place, the evidence of St. John, in his seven epistles, written to the churches in Asia. They are each of them addressed to the angel of the respective churches. Among those holding to the language of the preface to the Ordinal, that " from the apostles' time, there have been these three orders of ministers in Christ's church, bishops, priests, and deacons," there can be no doubt, that by "angel" is signified bishop.. Indeed, but two other interpretations have been suggested. One n^^kes the word ''angel" mean the presiding elder, or moderator, which, it is to be observed, is substantially the same, as far as our present purpose is concerned ; for " angel " still signifies the chief officer, the interpretation differing only as to the proper title to be given to the chief officer at that early date, — a controversy already de- termined for churchmen in the preface to the Ordinal. The other uter- pretation of the word '* angel " is, that it signifies the guardian angel of each church, a pure and simple spirit. The absurdity of this opinion, when taken in connexion with the tenor of the letters themselves, is too plain to need a refutation. It is taken for granted, that the reader will have no difficulty in concluding, that " angel " signifies bishop. In these Epis- tles of St. John, we have seven episcopal sees recorded, all within the district of Asia Proconsularis, even as limited by the narrower boundaries of St. Paul, viz., Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadel- phia, and Laodicea. The order of these it is well to note. In Constantine'a time, they were embraced within three distinct provinces, Asia, Lydia, and Phrygia Pacatiana Prima, the first three sees in the first province, the second three in the second, and Laodicea, the metropolis of the third. The distinct grouping together of the sees afterwards embraced in the same province, and the special mention of the metropolis of each, would seem to imply, that those principles, which afterwards resulted in the provincial system of church government, were already at work. Even during the time of St. Paul's journeyings, we have a strong indication of the same. When he wished to bid farewell to the church in Asia, and give them his parting words of admonition and love, he sends for the elders of the church at Ephesus, as though the whole province were properly represented by its chief city.

The second witness as to the dioceses in Asia Proconsularis, is St . Ignatius, who suffered martyrdom so soon after a.d. 100, that his testi- mony may, without error, be taken as evidencing the condition of the church at the close of the first century. He gives direct and positive tes- timony, that five cities, in the region under consideration, had each their bishop, in the cases of three mentioning the names of the individuals who *jj^^^^^ ^^® office. St. Ignatius, while on his way to martyrdom, addresses epistles to various churches, and one to an individual bishop, St. Polycarp, who was subsequently added to the same noble army of martyrs. Five of those epistles were written to churches in Asia Prooon-

186S.] MUeeUankg. 289

snlaris, viz., to Epbestra, Magnesia, Trallea, Phikdelphia, and Smyrna. Three of tbeae are included among the number addressed by St. Jobn, but we have two additional one^ Magnesia and Trallea, making nine dioceses in all, known to have existed at the time of tbe martyrdom of St. Ignatius. No inference can be drawn from tbe order of tbe epistles in this latter case ; for tbey are •separate documents, and not all em« braced m one continuous writing like those in St. John. We cannot say certainly, whether the order in which we now find them, is not due solely to him who first collected them. But, most probably, it is that of their respective dates. The first three were written from Smyrna, while on the way to Borne, to which city also St. Ignatius writes an epistle from the lame place. Omitting Smyrna, to which of course he could not then write, the order is that of their provincial importance. Afterwards, when he reaches Troas, he writes to Philadelphia, in the province of which Sardis was the metropolis, and, lastly, to Smyrna, and specially to its bishop, Polycarp. There were special reasons for St. Ignatius' addressing these churches ; either he had passed through those cities on his way to Rome and received personal tokeus of their love, or they had been specially interested in comforting and praying for the persecuted Church in Syria, over whose chief city, Antioch, St Ignatius had been bishop. His silence, in reference to the other churches mentioned by St. John, cannot, there- fore, be urged against their existence as episcopal sees in his day, especially as St. John addresses them in precisely the same manner in which he writes to the three which St. Ignatius asserts to have had their own bishops.

We hare thus found direct evidence of the existence of nine dioceses, all plainly within the narrow limits derived from St. Luke's account of the joumeyings of St. Paul. Archbishop Ussher, indeed, assigns no greater limits to the province of Asia, as that name was understood in the time of Constantine. Dividing twenty thousand square miles among nine sees, we have an average length and breadth of forty seven miles. In other words, in a space less than the single diocese of New York, there were at least nine bishops, each exercising his own separate jurisdiction, and this at about a.d. 100, and under strictly Apostolic rule.

The number is set down as at least nine, for although this is all that can be positively asserted, there is strong reason to believe the number greater. In the instance of Coloasse, to which church St. Paul addressed an epistle, the .probability almost rises to certainty. Epaphras is spoken of in such warm terms for his zeal in caring for their spiritual interests, that the suggestion at once presents itself, that he was their bishop. The actual title is not bestowed, but many of the characteristics of a true and faithful bishop are given. Not only Colossse, but Hierapolis and Laodicea, are mentioned in the same epistle, as containing well established churches, and knowing the custom that prevailed in other churches at the end of the first century, we may reasonably suppose, that, by that time, if not in the apostles' days, these two additional cities, Colossse and Hierapolis, also had their bishops. As still farther corroborative evidence in the case of Hierapolis, we have the testimony of Eusebins, in his Ecclesiastical History^ that while Polycarp flourished at Smyrna, Papias was bishop of

240 Mucellanies. [April,

Hierapolis. His words are : — " About this time flourished Polycarp in Asia, an intimate disciple of the apostles, who received the episcopate of the church at Smyrna, at the hands of* the eye witnesses and servants of the Lord. At this time also Papias was well known as bishop of the church at Hierapolis, a man well skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures."^ — Eysebius, then, in the same chapter, goes on to speak of St. Ignatius. It is true, that two hundred years had elapsed before this testimony was written. But in the case of a man, so well known, and so highly esteemed as to be classed along with St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, we cannot suppose that so short a period could have introduced any material error as to the time at which he lived. — American Quarterly Church Beview, July, 1862.

Hoyal Society o/Liieratare, — January 7. — The meeting was numerously attended, much curiosity having been excited by the announcement that the questionable manuscripts introduced to the world by Mr. Simonides would be exhibited for inspection. Several large glazed frames containing fragr ments of papyrus of various sizes were placed on the table. A large volume, the celebrated Uranius manuscript, was also produced.

Mr. Vaux stated that, inasmuch as it was impossible for a critical examination of these manuscripts to be made except by daylight, and with the aid of the microscope, it had been proposed that they should be allowed to remain at the rooms of the Society during Friday and Saturday, and that they should be open to inspection from eleven till three on those days to all interested in the subject. One or more members of the Society would be in attendance during those hours, so that the examination might take place under the sanction and countenance of the Society. The papyri were all the property of Mr. Mayer, of Liverpool ; the Uranius manuscript was the property of Mr. Simonides, who had consented to its being in- spected in the way proposed.

Mr. Thomas Wright next gave some account of the history of the papyri. Mr. Mayer, of Liverpool, commenced many years ago to form a collection of Egyptian and other autiquities. Among the curiosities he obtained were certain papyrus rolls, some of which came from the collec- tion of the late Mr. Sams, and some were more recently obtained from the Rev. H. Stobart. These rolls, unfortunately, were neither described nor labelled at the time of their being acquired ; they were mixed together ; it beeame impossible to identify them, and Mr. Mayer was himself ignorant of their nature and contents. Some years ago Mr. Simonides was allowed by Mr. Mayer to take the rolls out of the museum and to carry them to his own residence for examination. Mr. Simonides pro- duced shortly afterwards a number of fragments, which he stated to be Mr. Mayer's papyri unrolled. These fragments were those in the frames on the table ; they contained many Greek texts of great value and im- portance, if genuine. Mr. Simonides published a volume containing fac- similes of many of these fragments, and their genuineness had been disputed.

<^ Bus., Eccl, Hi»., lib. iii., chap, xxxvi.

1863.] Mi^eOamei. 241

The Re?. Oanou Cureton wished to ask Mr. Simonides from whenoc the Uranios maauscript bad been obtained by him.

Mr. Simonides, throagh the medium of a Greek friend, who acted as bis interpreter (although Mr. Simonides himself speaks English fluently), said thsi he had obtained the manoscript from a person at AJexandria ; and stated that it had previously been brought from a noonastery in Syria, from ihenoe taken to Alexandria, from thenoe carried to the Sinai monasteiy, and then again back to Alexandria.

February 11. — Sir Henry G. Bawlinson, K.G.B., Yice-Preaident, in the ehair.

The Seeretary, Mr. Yaux, read a report upon the Mayer papyri and tlie Uninins palimpsest, which had been presented to the Council, and approved by them. The report stated that on Friday and Saturday, January 9th and 10th, the collection of papyri from Mr. Mayer's museum was placed npon the table of the Boyal Society of Literature for the exa- mination of such gentlemen as might think it worth while to see them. Among those who availed themselves of this opportunity were Sir F. Madden, Sir C. Nicholson, Mr. Birch, Mr. Bonomi, Mr. Eliot Hodgkin, the Bev. Dr. Cureton, Dr. Hunt, Mr. James Yates, Sir H. G. Bawlinson, Mr. Bond, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Poole, the Bev. Mr. Hugo, Mr. Goodwin, and Dr. Guest. Mr. ^monides, accompanied by one of his Greek friends, was present during the whole time ; and Mr. Hugo, Dr. Guest, Mr. Hamflton, Mr. Bonomi, and Mr. Yaux attended during portions of each day to represent the Society as members of its Council. No formal decision was come to on either of these days with regard to the documents in question, as the object of the exhibition was rather that these papyri should be seen by many palteographers who had previously no acquaint- aaoe with them beyond such as might be gained from the fao-similes pablished by Mr. Mayer, rather than that any deliberate opinion should be expressed about them. Unquestionably, however, the judgment of nearly all who saw them was decidedly adverse to the genuineness of any of the manuscripts so exhibited. It was remarked, inter alia, that there was a manifest similarity between the handwriting of the different manuscripts, •0 great, indeed, as hardly, it was thought, to be the result of accident ; that letters of very different dates were frequently found in the same maousOTspts, and to such an extent, that had they been met with in any medinval document, sueh a manuscript would have been indubitably rejected as apurious; and more than this, that in some cases letters di^ering by centuries in their date occurred in juxtaposition in the same word, and vice vers4.

It was noticed that occasionally forms of Ghreek letters appeared, the existence of which the most practised palaeographers did not recognize at all ; that in some instances the presumed ancient letters on the papyri bore a strangely suspicious resemblance to the characters of the modern Greek inscriptiona placed over the head of each manuscript to describe its contents ; and that this was the case to such a degree that, had the ink and the material on which the writing was placed being in each case the aame, unprejudiced observers could scarcely have fail^ to declare the npanoscript and its superscription to be in one and the same hand. It was

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. V. E

242 Miscellanies. [April,

observed that the colour of the papyri was, with two or three exceptions, wholly different from that invariably found in manuscripts of the same pre* sumed age and character, suggesting the strong probability that the papyrus had been purposely stained and discoloured before the present writing was put upon it; and lastly, that occasionally portions of the papyri of different textures had been joined together so as to make up one piece, even if it was not also torn, as was asserted by more than one observer, — that papyri differing in date by more than one thousand years had been stuck side by side, evidently owing to the ignorance of the person who subsequently joined them together. Attention was further called to the fact that the papyri exhibited were all fastened down (with one exception) in such a manner that it was impossible to see what had been on the other side, so that no opinion could be formed as to the state of the papyrus when first unrolled ; and that though Mr. Mayer (through Mr. Thomas Wright) had expressed his willingness that the glass over them should be removed (as was done in one instance), the removal of the glass did not enable any one to see of what nature was the back of the papyrus, and whether there had been any hieratic or other writing on it, which it would be natural to expect if the papyrus were in its original state. It was fur* ther generally felt that though fairly visible, so far as it was possible, superficially there was, after all, no satisfactory evidence that the papyri under view were really the same as Mr. Mayer had originally purchased from Mr. Stobart, Mr. Sams, and other collectors ; and that though many reasonable questions were put to Mr. Simonides on this subject, the answers were in every case evasive. All that could be learnt on this matter was in fact no more than has been already published two years since by Mr. Simonides, to the effect that he had unrolled from time to time certain papyri in Mr. Mayer's museum, and that he was subsequently permitted to take some portions of them to his own house, for the purpose of deciphering them at his leisure. On the other hand, it was publicly stated by more that one gentleman who had repeatedly seen and nandled the collections of the Rev. Mr. Stobart and of Mr. Sams, before they came into the possession of Mr. Mayer, that they had no remembrance of any of these manuscripts bearing any resemblance to those now purporting to belong to Mr. Mayer.

Attention was also called to the breadth of these pieces of papyrus, or rather to the unusual length of the lines of writing in the mtgority of them ; and it was stated that this fact alone would lead to much suspicion as to their genuineness on the part of those most versed in palssographic studies. The report then referred to the papyrus examined by Mr. Goodwin, containing some lines of hieratic writing in the midst of a Greek text (see Parthenon^ Jan. 17, p. 74), and in reference to the statements contained in Mr. Goodwin's letter, it is observed there can be no doubt, whatever judgment may be passed upon the other papyri in this collection, that the one examined by Mr. Goodwin is a rank forgery, probably of very recent date. Besides the Mayer manuscripts, Mr. Simonides also exhibited two rolls of hieratic writing, about the genuineness of which there was no question whatever; and the famous "Uranius," about which there has been so much discussion among the scholars of Germany.

1863.] Miscellanies. 243

No definite cdnclasion, however, was drawn on either day with respect to this manuscript, because the ultimate determination of the fact, whether the uncial letters do or do not underlie the later twelfth-century writing, can only be determined by microscopical examination, for which there was no opportunity afforded on this occasion. It ought, however, to be stated that by such microscopic examination, the well-known microsoopists Professors Ehrenberg, Dove, and Magnus did so condemn it in January, 1856 ; that recently the same conclusion was arrived at during the meet- ing of the British Association at Cambridge in October, 1862. Moreover, that a particular phrase — xar ifnav iBdap — occurring in it, which at the time was objected to by scholars as unlike ancient Greek, had been, since its first examination by the German scholar, erased, and another and more purely Greek phrase — uf9 ifiol Boxei — substituted in its place. It may be also added, that in the opinion of most of those best qualified to give an opinion on the subject, the parchment of the manuscript under which the presumed uncial letters of the Uranius are written was itself of the period when the upper manuscript was written, namely of the twelfth century, and therefore that the date assigned by Simonides to his uncial writing could not be correct, even if it should be proved to be a genuine palimpsest.

The reading of this report was followed by a discussion, in which Sir F. Madden, Dr. Birch, Mr. James Yates, Mr. Eliot Hodgkin, and other gentlemen took part.

Mr. Deane, a microscopist, gave an account of his examination of the Uranius manuscript and of some of the papyri. With regard to the former, his condusion was that the uncial writing was under the twelfth-century

text.

Mr. TV. A. Wright read a paper on the Codex Sinaiticus, in which he recapitulated the chief points in its known history, and of the statements of Mr. Simonides on the subject. He drew attention to the letters professing to be from Hieromonachus Kallinikos, which have appeared in the Guardian newspaper, and the originals of some of which were produced. They appeared to be in a handwriting identical with that of Mr. Simonides, and the paper of exactly the same kind as some letters of that gentleman.

M. Nicolaides, a Greek ecclesiastic, in whose house Simonides lodged at Liverpool, made a statement to the effect that Simonides had had the Mayer papyri for a long time at his house. It is to be hoped that the information of M. Nicolaides, which was not very clearly understood by the meeting, will be furnished in a more definite form. — Parthenon.

March 11.— Mr. R. S. Poole read a paper " On the List of the Con- federacy defeated by Thothmes III. before Megiddo." This document had been already commented upon by M. de Roug^, and Mr. Poole ac- cepted and extended his results. The battle to which the List refers is shewn by the Annals of Thothmes III. to have been fought in his twenty- third year, according to the common opinion, B. c. eir. 1450. The annals give the line of march, which proves the city to be the Biblical Megiddo. The list is shewn by its title to be an enumeration of the tribes or cities of the confederacy, of which the territories are stated to have extended from Megiddo to Neharena, probably Mesopotamia,

r2

244 Miscellanies. [April,

certainly a country east or north-east of Palestine. The list is not in geo- graphical order. M. de Rong^ had identified the following names of cities : — 1. KcTeSHU, the great Hittite city on the Orontes. 2. vakstsb, Megiddo. 6. TeBcKHU, Tibhath in Zobah. 11. masama, Merom. 12. tcUfsku, Damascus. 14, 97. atjbeeba, two cities Abel. 16. h^mtu, Hamath. astcratu, Ashteroth. 80. kawee&a, Laish. 81. hetaea (hezaea), Hazor. 88. kbn-nabatu, Cinnereth. 87. shcNama, Shu- nem. 89. akscp, Achsaph. 52, 68. apba, Two cities Ophrah. 64. KHASHB1}, Heshbon (P). 66. veBKV, Negeb, the sonth of Palestine. 61. TePU, Joppa. 79. KcBARA, Gerar. For the remaining names M. de Eoug^ offers several probable Hebrew etymologies. No. 100. yakba* AHA, which he reads jaakay-aea, he transcribes into the Hebrew bm^TT, " nom an sujet dnquel il serait (acile de se liyrer i des ooigec-

tures s^duisantes ; il est ezactement compost comme Israel Est-il

permis de supposer que se nom de locality conserve un souvenir d'on des ^blissements de Jacob en Palestine ?" Mr. Pook heki that the name as here transcribed would most probably read '* God will supplant," consisting of the futnre form Jacob, with the addition of the name of God, which, in such forms, is almost always the nominative. A name perfectly analogous, ycshcp-aba, occurs in the List. Mr. Poole would read it SrT|<DT, *' God will add," the name Joseph with the nominative expressed. We have no instance of the Hebrew sameeh being transcribed by the Egyptian sh, but conversely its Egyptian correspondents are used for the Hebrew Bhin, Supposing that the names Jacob and Joseph are preserved in Jacob-el and Joseph-el, such forms may be cited as Nathan, Nathaniel, Netbaniah, Jehonathan, Giphthah, Jiphthah-el. Mr. Poole was disposed to recognize other tribe-names in babana, Reuben, BHeMANA, possibly Bimcon, ashoshkh6N, probably Issachar (Hebrew Isiaskar), kauta, perhaps Gad. It is to be remarked that the confede- racies of the Judge period are, When of Canaanites, of cities, when of Abrahamites, of tribes. Thus a confederacy of Canaanites and Hebrews would have been of cities and tribes. We have no record of any such confederacy in the Bible ; but the tribe-names may merely indicate mer- cenaries, as the number of members is too numerous for individual con- tingents to have been large. The names Jacob and Joseph are sometimes 5ut for the twelve tribes in the Bible : as Joseph is for Ephraim and [anasseh, Jacob may, in the List of Thothmes, more specially indicate Judah. The migority of the identifications which Mr. Poole pro* posed might be doubtful; but this of Jacob and Joseph, whether of tribe«-names or not, could, he thought, scarcely be controverted. If ae- cepted, it would necessitate the adoption of the earliest date of the Exodus, B.C. dr. 1650. The time would about correspond to the oppression of the Israelites by Jabin, King of Canaan. As the confederacy defeated by Thothmes was apparently headed by the Prince of KcTcsh, it seems possible that the King of Canaan mentioned in the Bible, whose title never occurs at any other period, was set up by the conqueror, and the Canaanites of the north of Palestine assigned to him. — Mr. Birch and Sir C. Nicholson expressed themselves as favouring the late date of the Exodus in the reign of Men-ptah, b.g. dr. 1800; but they did not eon-

1868.] MUceOamea. 345

aider the question as settled. — Mr. Poole oommuiiicated a paper, by Professor Tagore, *' On the Ethnological Value of the Institutes of Manu." The writer traced in the names of the military class certain original nations : the Chinas he held to be the Chinese ; the Pehlevis, the Per- sians ; the Cambojas, a people on the north-east frontiers of Persia ; the Javanas, the lonians ; the Deradas, the Druids ; the Chasas, the Cushites ; the Critas, the Cretans, etc. In the statement of Herodotus that Medea was ook>niaed by the Ani or Aryans, he found a trace of the direction of the Aryan migratioo ; and in the list of Median tribes given by Herodotus, the originals of tribes mentioned in the Institutes. So also in the Shah- N&meh of Firdusi* the names of the castes preserve traces of the no- meochiture of those of India in the Institutes. Professor Tagore was disposed to think that some of the names furnished him by Mr. Poole from the List of Thothmes were traceable in those of the military tribes in the Institutes. In any case, he saw in the ethnic character of the tribe- names of the Institutes the formation of castes in their elemental state. — Mr. Yaux read a paper, by Mr. Fox Talbot, containing a translation made by him.of the Annals of Esarhaddon, preserved on a clay cylinder in the British Museum. In these Annab the Assyrian King describes his conquests of Sidon, the overthrow of Hazael ; the conquest of the Marsh Country of Lower Chaldea ; a war with the Elamites, or people of Sosiana ; a war with Media ; with a notice of the civil administration of his empire; and an account of the magnificent palaces which be built. — Jikeitaum*

Egyptology, — ^The long-promised collection of mural and monumental inscriptions selected by Dr. Henri Brugsch, and published by favour of the Viceroy of Egypt, has begun to be issued in parts, aimultaneously, at Leipsig and Paris. Fragments' of the work have heretofore appeared in the Zeiisehrift der deutacken morgenldndUchen GeschelUchaft ; but the sys- tematic publication of these materials has been delayed by Dr. Brugsch's visit to Persia, under the direction of the Prussian government.

The Tolume consists of fifty plates, delicately executed on stone, with about sixty pages of preliminary text, explaining the subject-matter of the pUtes, and in several instances translating the hieroglyphic and demotic inscriptions in detail. The plates are arranged in the order of the places where the originals are found, beginning at Memphis, and advancing up the Nile to the island of Philae. The present volume, which is the first of a series, contains ten inscriptions from Memphis, one from Lycopolis, two from Abydus, three from Tentyra, and thirty-four from Thebes. Several of the plates are printed upon large double sheets, folded in map style. They are all original transcripts by Dr. Brugsch, either of tablets and inscriptions first discovered by himself, or of monuments imperfectly or erroneously copied by his predecessors in this field of inquiry. They are designed to promote Egyptian archseology in all its branches, and espe- cially to furnish materials for studies in history, mythology, astronomy, and geography.

The first plate is a fine representation of the colossus of Mitrahenny, the site of Memphis^ which in g^ndeur of dimensions and beauty of execu-

246 Miscellanies. [April,

lion is unsurpassed by any monument on the soil of Egypt. From the hieroglyphics, Dr. Brugsch identifies this as the statue of Rameses II., whom he assigns to the period 1407 — 1341 B.C. On the second plate are sketched two somewhat uncouth statues now in the Eoyal Museum of Berlin. They are of black granite, and in a very antique slyle. Dr. Brugsch regards this plate as of a special historical value, indicating both a political and a religious usurpation on the part of Menephthes I., in the fourteeuth century, B.C., which was followed by a general persecution. Such claims as these raise a point-blank issue with the scepticism of Sir O. Cornewall Lewis, as to the vahie of hieroglyphic interpretations. Dr. Brugsch is confident that Menephthes I. appropriated to his own use the monuments, titles, and inscriptions of his predecessors, and that he favoured the worship of the god Soutech of Tanis, a divinity of another Nome. Plates IV. and Y., though containing but a few lines of hieroglyphics, pre- sent to the eye perhaps the first authentic copies of inscriptions from the sanctuary of Ptah, in the famous temple of Memphis. These were disco- vered and identified by Dr. Brugsch himself, while roaming about the Arab vDlages (of detestable memory !) Mitrahenny and Bedrechcm, which now defile the site of the ancient capital of Lower Egypt. One of these inscrip- tions is of the highest historical significance, as proving the mythological connexion between the Phcenicians and the Egyptians. The person to whom it relates is styled *' prophet of the god ^^k (Lunus), who resides in the city of Pe . . . , prophet [of the temple] of the king Sahoura and pro- phet of the goddess ^Astert, mistress of two worlds. The importance of this discovery is thus stated by Brugsch :

** That which gives great value to this inscription, is the mention of thd foreign goddess Astoreth. In my OeographUche Inschriften, Vol. I., p. 236, I have shewn — citing a number of hieroglyphic passages — that there was at Memphis, in the quarter called Anch-ta (literany, world or land of life), a temple consecrated to the goddess Baste, who is identical with the foreign Aphrodite of Memphis, mentioned by Herodotns. The Astoreth of our inscrip- tion is none other than Baste, the first being the foreign name, the latter the Egyptian. The goddess Astoreth, whose name and worship are better known through the traditions and the mvthology of the people of Canaan, appears upon the Egyptian monuments as the female form of the god Baal-Soutech. This god, whose name is so often cited in the times when the Egyptians had hostile or friendly relations with the Ch^ta, the heathen of the Bible, was wor- shipped in Lower Egypt long before the date of our inscription. His temples, even his city Avarls or Tanis, are mentioned in papyrus-roUs and in inscrip- tions upon stone, in a way that favour the belief that his wife, the heavenly queen Astoreth, shared all the honours rendered to her august husbandf. Astoreth was, moreover, a particular form of the moon. It is not, then, sar- prising, that the priest to whom our inscription refers is called a * priest of the moon.' Her worship was adopted bv the Egyptians, as well as that of the god Soutech ; and we ought to be thankful for the good fortune which has preserved a monument whose existence proves once more the veracity of the father of history, old Herodotus."

Plate YII. presents some features of interest in inscriptions copied from the necropolis of Memphis, illustrating the religious belief of the old Egyptians. The series opens with an invocation to Honnachou, sur- named the " good god who dwelleth in truth," and who is believed to release souls out of perdition, and to assist them by his scaling-ladder

1863.] Miscellanies. 247

into the presence of the Lord of eternity. Persons interested in Egyptian research will not have forgotten the remarkable discovery of a perfect chamber of Apis, made by Mons. Mariette, in the s^rap^am of Memphis, in 1851. " By a chance that 1 can hardly acconnt for/' says this fortu- nate explorer, *' a chamber of the tomb of Apis, walled up in the thirtieth year of Rameses II., had escaped the spoilers, and I had the happiness to find it intact. Three thousand seven hundred years had not changed its original aspect. The fingers of the Egyptian who filled in the last stone of the wall built across the entrance, were still marked upon the cement. Naked feet had left their imprint upon the bed of sand deposited in a comer of the mortuary chamber. Nothing was wanting in this last sanc- tuary of death, where has rested, for nearly forty centuries, an embalmed bull." Dr. Brugsch has transcribed several of the inscriptions of this chamber. Some valuable hints concerning the Egyptian calendar are sup- plied by Plate XI., with inscriptions from Lycopolis. Plate XV. and XVI. are copies of a mural inscription on the temple of Tentyra. They give lists of plants, of precious stones and metals, and of liquids used in offerings to Osiris, and also of stuffs employed by the priests in their ceremonies. These may shed light upon the Jewish service. We find mention of the ken — the hin of the Hebrews — as a measure.

Travellers who have had the pleasure of meeting the French consul at Thebes, Mons. Maunier, will recall his choice collection of Egyptian anti- quities, and his enthusiastic devotion to his select museum. In studying this collection. Dr. Brugsch discovered in the interior of a coffin of syca- more wood, an astronomical representation of peculiar value. Besides the twelve signs of the zodiac, arranged six on either side, there is a grand central female figure (Plate XVII.), representing the celestial ocean, or the principle of humidity, surrounded by symbolical representations of the four winds. The planets Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, Mars, Venus, are also indi- cated, and the procreative divinity, the sun, is pictured by his usual symbol. A prayer for the deceased indicates faith in the immortality of the soul : " May thy soul live and rejuvenate itself to all eternity." The deceased, we are told, was aged thirty-one years, five months, and twenty-five days. Still another astronomical subject is presented in Plate XVIII. — a gro- tesque figure, and even indelicate but for its symbolical meaning. It is the body of a woman, indefinitely elongated, at right angles to her legs and arms, which touch the same plane in parallel lines, the head being downwards. This figure is the divinity spoken of above as the celestitd ocean, over which the god Ra navigates in his bark, which bears a different name for each of the twelve hours of the day. The arms of the goddess are toward the west, her legs toward the east, and her elongated body high in air represents the upper hemisphere. This peculiar hydrographic pro- jection— the celestial ocean — reminds us of the Hebrew conception of the waters above the firmament.

Plate XX. affords an illustration of the absurdities and monstrosities of the Egyptians in their worship : a creature compounded of man and bull, and surmounted by a crocodile, being used to denote one of the signs in the heavens. In Plate XXVI., the list of the conquests of Tothmosis III., and of his tributaries, illustrates the warlike relations of his reign toward

248 MiseeUamies. [April,

AMyria and othe? nations. One of its inscriptions describes " a beautiful barp, wrought of silver, gold, lapis-lazidi, brasSy and all manner of predoua stones."

A long poem odebrating a victoiy of Barneses II. is transcribed upon Plates XXIX. — XXXII. The remaining plates oi this Tolame are occupied with lists of victories and their spoils, and with fulsome panegyric, upoo the royal conquerors.

From this brief outline, it is evident that Dr. Bmgsch has presented in this coUection materials of great value for the study of Egyptian histoiy, science, and art. We shall not fail to advise the readers of the BibUMeca of the progress of this work in its future numbers.

But bow far are his interpretations reliable P Of how much real value are such readings as materiads for lustoiy ? These questions assume new interest in view of the vigorous assault upon the results of Egyptologers by the Bight Hon. Sir Qeorge Comewall Lewis, in bis HiUaneal Survep of ike Astromm^ of the AmcimU, This remarkable specimen of his- torical scepticism opens with a tone of modesty that awakens no suspicion of the author's aim. " It has appeared to the author that an attempt might advantageously be made to treat the histoiy of ancient astronomy, without exdnsive reference to physical science, and without any pretension on his part to that profound and comprehensive knowledge of modem mathematical astronomy which some of bis predeoessore in the treatment of this subject have possessed." Yet the tone of the work, throughout, is that of judicial criticism pronouncing authoritatively against the views of the scientific astronomy and chronology of the ancients, which have been set forth by eminent historical authorities. He rejects the opinion that the nundinal period of the Bomans was connected with the determina- tion of the civil year, and regards it as merely a convenient market-day arrangement; thus differing from the week, as observed by several oriental nations, which, as the fourth part of a periodic lunar month, is a proper astronomical division. He assigns the Etruscans to a low grade in science, notwithstanding the admiration of Niebuhr for their proficiency. " The profound astronomical science supposed by Niebuhr to have been possessed by the Etruscans in the eighth century B.C., ia opposed both to evidence and probability. The Etruscans never made any advance in physical and mathematical science, or even in history and literature. Their nearest approach to astronomy consisted in their observa* tion of lightning for purposes of divination," (p. 56.) Mommsen assigns the same low place to the Etruscans both in science and in art. He attaches bat little intellectual value to their cosmogony and philosophy^ and asserts that scholars must, with whatever reluctance, make up their minds to transfer the Etruscans from the first to the lowest place in the history of Italian art.

Though he allows to the Greeks a higher knowledge of astronomy than existed among the Bomans, our author argues t^t neither their religion, their mythology, nor their divination had any special reference to astronomy, and that much that is imputed to Thales — especially his visit to Egypt, and his prediction of a solar eclipse — ^is apocryphal Sir Come- wall Lewis is quite disposed to undervalue the authority of Herodotus.

1863.] Mueettame$. 249

Fiom the hisioiy of the astronomy <^ the (^eeks and Bomaas, which under iU pbiloaophical and scientific aspects ocoupies two hundred and filtj pages of his work, the author proceeds to the astronomy of the Babylonians and Egyptians. Here his tendency to a sceptical demolition of prevalent theories is at once evinced by the following remark : '* We cannot^ con- sistently with the capacities and tendencies of the oriental mind, suppose that either of these nations ever rose to the conception of astronomy as a fldenoe, that they treated it with geometrical methods, or that they at- tempted to form a system of the universe founded upon an inductive or even upon a speculative basis. The knowledge of geometry ascribed to the Egyptians seems morely to have grown out of their skill in land- measuring. All the extant evidence goes to prove that the scientific geometiy of the Greeks was exclusively their own invention. It may be doubted whether any Chaldean or Egyptian priest bad a mind suffi- ciently trained in abstract reasoning to be able to follow the demonstra- tions of the properties of the conic sections invented by Apollonius," (p. 278.) Sir George argues that if any of the Egyptian or Chaldean priests had really possessed the profound and exact knowledge of astro- nomy which is attributed to them in a body, he would have gained an individual reputation, and his name would have come down to us through Plato, Aristotle, or some other of the earlier writers. This argument, however, has little weight ; since these writers could hardly be expected to chronicle in detail the celebrities of remote countries, and since such personal references may have perished in the lost literature of antiquity.

The most striking portion of the volume under review, is the chapter on the early histoiy and chronology of the Egyptians. The author con- cedes that up to tbe date of Psammetichus, 670 B.C., " we may consider the Egyptian chronology as determined, within moderate limits of error, upon trustworthy evidence." Yet he considers the alleged circumnaviga- tion of Africa in the time of Neco, the successor of Psammetichus, as too imperfectly attested, and too improbable in itself to be regarded as a his- torical fact. Beyond the era of Psammetichus, according to our author, Egyptian history is vague and unreliable : the royal list of Manetho is the result of bis own invention ; the primitive kings are nothing more than a long procession of regal spectres, like the series of fabulous British kings beginning with Brutus the grandson of ^neas, who migrated to Britain, and ending with the invasion of Julius Csesar. Much of what is called Egyptian history has evidently been borrowed from the Greek mythology. The extensive conquests of Sesostris, and his vast armies, are marvellous figments, unworthy of any credit ; and in everything relating to the anti- quities of Egypt, Herodotus was imposed upon by the cunning of tbe priests. This sweeping incredulity Sir Comewall Lewis justifies by the argiunent that, since Herodotus, Manetho, Eratosthenes, and Diodorus all alike derived their information respecting Egyptian antiquity firom the priests, and the sacred books in the temples, the vast discordance between their several lists of kings proves that the priests had no authentic written records of their ancient history, — which would have furnished the same facts to all investigators, — but fabricated stories to satisfy these inquisitive and over-credulous chroniclers. Rcjjecting as fabulous the high claims of

250 MUceUames, [April,

Egyptian antiquity, he gives it as his conclusion, that there is no sufficient ground for placing any of the buildings and great works extant in the time of Herodotus, at a date anterior to the building of the temple of Solomon, 1012 B.C. ; and regarding the reading of the hieroglyphics as arbitrary and indeterminate, he treats all the results of Egyptology as barren, uncertain, and worthless.

The author is especially severe upon the late Baron Bunsen, whom he describes as a dexterous manipulator, transmuting legends into history — a " chronocrator,'* claiming a sort of reflex second-sight, and dividing up monarchs and eras with a discretionary power, in order to frame his own theory. Those who hold to a sedate Biblical chronology, -will not object to such an excoriating of Bunsen by a writer whose zeal for the Hebrew Scriptures is no greater than his own. But between the extremes of his- torical scepticism, represented by Bunsen and Lewis, we beg to interpose a rational and moderating faith. There is a mutual confirmation of the Hebrew books of Kings and Chronicles, and of Egyptian records and monuments of the sixth and seventh centuries before Christ ; i, «., within the limits which Sir George Lewis assigns as the trustworthy period of Egyptian history. He himself cites this correspondence from the Hebrew Sjcriptures. It cannot be, therefore, that the reading of the hieroglyphics is so unworthy of trust as he would have us believe. The science of their interpretation is yet in its infancy ; the key has been found, though the cabalistic words that would open many a ward of this huge combination-lock, are not yet discovered. It becomes Egyptologers to labour with modesty, as well as with patience; and the extravagant scepticism of Sir G. C. Lewis as to their results, may give a salutary check to their own no less extravagant speculations. Time will correct and harmonize what now seems doubtful or contradictory. — (AmericanJ Bibliotheca Sacra,

Royal AHatic Society, — January 19. — ^Two papers were read. I. « On the Siirya-siddhftnta," by William Spottiswoode, Esq.. M.A., F.R.S. ; II. " On the age of Katy&yana," by Professor Th. Goldstucker.

1. Mr. Spottiswoode began by describing the Surya-siddhdnta as being one of the most authorative, if not also one of the oldest, treatises on astronomy possessed by the Hindus. It is, of course, in the Sanskrit language. Its form is metrical, as is that of a considerable share of ancient Indian literature; dictionaries, law-books, etc., not excluded. Mr. Spottiswoode, after adverting to considerations that formerly deterred him from publishing the original of the Stirya-siddhftnta, signified his satisfaction with the mode in which it has been edited by Professer Hall in the Bibliotheca Indica of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and with Mr. Burgess's translation, accompanied by a very full commentary, in the Journal of the American Oriental Society. The object which he proposed to himself was, to represent, under expressions familiar to ordinary students of astronomy, the chief results arrived at by the Siirya-siddh&nta, and to give an account of the processes by which those results were reached.

2. P&nini is the most ancient Hindu grammarian whose work has come down to us. His labors have been criticized and supplemented by

1863.] Miscellanies. 261

Katy&yana. Of the interval that divided the two, nothing positive can be asserted — only Professor Qoldstucker had already made it evident that it most have been very great. And at last he has ascertained that we have to place no other interval than that which may separate contem- poraries between Katy&yana and his own commentator, Patanjali, author of the Mahabhashya.

From P&nini we learn that a regnlar system of nomenclature was current in India, by which the name of any person of distinction was memorized in the appellations of his descendants. This system, moreover, distingaished between the elder and the younger members and branches of the same family, and contains certain criteria by which contempora* neousness can be established. As in the days of PILnini, so in those of Katyayana and Patanjali, this system is seen, from their glosses, to have been in full force. Now, from facts which seem to be unimpeachable. Professor Goldstucker proved that the manner in which Patanjali, the commentator of ' KUty&yana, uses the name of this grammarian, leaves no doubt that he must have been his contemporary.

Professor Max Miiller has asserted in his Ancient Sanskrit Literature, that " at what time the MahlLbh^hya was first composed it is impossible to say," but Professor Goldstucker had discovered and recorded — in his ''P^ini — his Place in Sanskrit Literature" — a definite range of only twenty years, within which the author of the Mah&bb4shya, Patanjali, must have flourished. The purport of Professor Goldstiicker*8 paper was, to ahew that K&tyftyana lived at the same time, namely, between the years 140 and 120 B.C.

Curiously enough, out of the two and thirty chapters that make up the grammar of P&niui, it is one and the same chapter which, in the an- notations called forth by it, has supplied Professor Goldstucker with materials for determining the date of two of the most important literary personages of ancient India.

The Professor then went on to speak of the bearing of his discovery as regards early Hindu literature generally. Unquestionably, it is of great moment, and will eventually be recognized as such.

With reference to the paper that had just been read, several members of the society, while deploring the paucity of genuine chronological data in connexion with the history of ancient India, entered their protests against a recent theory which many have accepted as hardly otherwise than demonstrative. In this theory it is assumed that the development of the literature of the various Yedas was collateral; and we are invited to persuade ourselves that it has been safely conjectured, at least within a century or two, how long it took each department of this literature to attain its completion. But it happens that P&nini knew nothing of the White Yajur Veda, whereas he was acquainted with the Rig Veda. Indeed, of the Rig Veda, the whole of the appendant literature may have been completed before a word of the White Yajur Veda was indited. There is no proof whatever to the contrary. Ingenious and plausible speculation is well when facts fail, and as a last resort. But the primary and paramount duty of the sober student of history is to give a sifting examination to extant written documents.-*- i?ea(i^.

252 Miscellanies. [April,

Tke Cedars pf Zebanou. — A modem tni?dler writes to the Aikenaum.' — The present Arabic name of the cedar of Lebanon, "Aiz" (or "£1 Arzch"), is the same as the Hebrew *' Arz ;" and there can be no doubt that it is the yery tree so often mentioned in the Bible. The wood is in appear- ance very similar to deal ; but its peculiar smell, and its durability after many ages, shew it to be very unlike, and very superior to tbe fir ; and this durability, and its power of preserving whatever was placed in contact with it, gained for it the esteem of the ancients. For these reasons, it was selected for roofing large buildings, for making coffins and boxes, and for numerous other purposes. Pliny (xvL 11 and 39; xziv. 5) mentions the preservative power of its oil or juice ; the Egyptians used the oil in the embalming process (Herodot., ii. 86 : Plin., xvi. 11 ; xxiv. 5) ; and the inner mummy-cases were frequently made of this wood, as may be readily perceived from the smell of the fires in a winter's evening at Thebes. Papyri and books were sometimes steeped in oil of cedar to insure their preservation, and kept in boxes of cedar or of cypress wood (Uor. A.P. 332; Pers. Sat. i. 42). Pliny (xvi. 40} says that the Egyptians and Syrians, from the scarcity of fir, employed the cedar for " shipbuilding," which is also referred to by Theophrastus (iv. 6). EsekieL (xxxii. 5) speaks of masts of cedar, and (xxvii. 24) of chests of cedar used by merchants; roofs, doors, and even whole temples and palaces, were made of this wood, which, in later times, was profusely employed in ordinary houses, and for the most common purposes ; and besides the washing down of the soil from the mountain sides, to which the reckless manner in which the trees were felled greatly contributed, the constant use of the wood on ordinaiy occasions may have been one of the caoses of the dimunition of the trees on Lebanon. It is certain, however, that in ancient as well as modem times the name of '* cedar" was sometimes applied to other trees ; and Pliny (xiii. 5) mentions two kinds of small and two of large cedars.

In consequence of the labour of carrying wood so far to the sea*coast, some have supposed that tbe cedars of old could not have been brought down from that part of the Lebanon where they are now found, and have concluded that they formerly grew in the vicinity of the sea-shore ; but the name of Lebanon, or Lubnoon (so called from "labn," or "lubn,") "white," a word resembling the Arabic "lubn," *'milk," having been given to the mountain from its " white summit" (as in the case of " Mont Blanc"), shews that it was from the immediate vicinity of the suowv mountun that the trees were obtained ; and the ** mountain-loving cedar, ' as it was called by the ancients, is never described as growing on the hills near the shore. Nor can it be doubted that the Eden of Esekiel (xxxi. 16 — 18), which he mentions in connexion with the old cedars, is repre* sented by the present village of Ehden, close to which the celebrated grove now stanas ; and when we recollect to what immense distances the ancients carried most ponderous blocks of stone, we can scarcely doubt that, if necessaiy, the timber for sacred and regal buildings would be con- veyed from the most distant parts of that mountain to the shore. The labour, however great, would not have deterred them; and though Diodoms (xix. 88) says that Ptolemy employed 1,000 beasts of burthen

1863.] MiiceUanies. 258

to eany wood ftom the Lebanon for shipbuilding purpoees, tbat mode of tramport may not ba?e been adopted on all occasions ; and any one who bas witnessed the conyeyanoe of timber by means of the rapid torrents of the Alps and other mountainous regions, will at once peroeire, on visiting the n^faboaring Wady Kadeesha (the *' Holy Valley*'), how easily they night have avafled themselves of its powerful stream, after the melting of Ifae snows, for conveying the timber to the coast near Tripoli, where it was formed into rafts and floated to Jaffa (Joppa) by the Tyrians and ^^Sidoniani" (Ezra iiL 7 ; 1 Kings v. 9; Joseph., AnUq.^ iii. 6 — 8); and the Hebrew word in 1 Kings v. 9, which we translate ''shall bring," may also apply to the act of bringing down by water ; being used in Joel ii. 23, in the sentence '' cause rain to ' come down' by for you ;" and the veiy name of the Jordan is derived from the same word — "iered," to "descend" •r «flow."

Diswveriea in the Balkan. — Dr. Dethier, Director of the Austrian School mt Constantinople, has sent a report of some very important dtscoveriea made by him in the Balkan to the Imperial Academy at Vienna, from which we take the following. — Towards the end of July hst he identified certain ruins, exca^vated by a Frenchasan living at Iglitza, with the remnants of the city called, wrongly, Trosmes, by Ovid and other writers. The inscriptions, all in Latin, from Augustus toGalUenns, read distinctly Troes-Menaes, — a mixed colony of Troea and Menses, an ancient Thracian people, another branch of which is oiUed Dei-Mensi by Ptolemy. This place was a chief station of the Boman legions, «md the residence of a Pontifex and Sacerdos Provincise. (hie of the firagments of the inscriptions contains the army-list of the Officers of the Roman Legio Augusta, stationed there. Besides this, the legions V. and 'VI., Mac. Ital., Trajana, Fresensis, etc., occur on bricks and inscriptions. The castrum, on the chalk-cliffs, two hundred feet high, commanded the Danube ; aqueducts furnished it with the most splendid water from the rooks. Another not unimportant point has been cleared up'by Dr. Dethier, viz., the site of ancient Tomi, cele- brated through Ovid's exile. Dr. Dethier has found that Tomi was not situated close to the sea, hut more inland, on a hill, to the north- irest of Kustenje, where ruins are met with (at Anadolikoi). The port of Tomi was at Kustenje, and was transformed by Titus iilto a distinct town, Flavia Nea, probably because Tomi became celebrated through Ovid, who was much read. Antoninus Pins made Tomi a metropolis, where the Pontarch and Pontifex of the Greeks — it was on the left border of the Pontus — had their residence. At a later period it was a bishop's see, until, at about 1000 a.d., it entirely disappeared. Flavia Nea had reeeived the name of Constantia from Constantine's sister, and Kustenje has still retained this name among the Greeks. A critical dissertation on the £ftmous serpent's column concludes the report. This dissertation is also contained in a rich epigraphical Byzantine collection, which Dr. Dethier is about to edit, together with Dr. Mordtmann, and of which the first half, down to Constantine the Great, is already in the priater^s hands. There will be abont three hundred unedited inscrip-

254 Miscettatiies, [Aprils

tions, and as many brick-marks of Byzantine Emperors. Their cha- racter is rendered with the utmost fidelity, and thus the work will form a continuation of Franz's Elementa Fpiffraphica for the Byzantine times. No less important is their contents. That powerful school of O. Muller, which denies that the East or Egypt have exercised any inflnence upon Greece, will find it hard to get over some of the facts brousht to light. Among other things Dr. Dethier found on the Thradan borders a "Ma- Muzene,'* which Dr. Mordtmann explains in accordance with the figure to which it belongs, from the Armenian, by " Magna Mater." It ap- pears from this that Bockh instinctively read Ma in another inscription without being able to explain it. Dr. Dethier has also found in the ancient Perinthos in the court of the present metropolitan church, once the temple of the Empress Sabina, an antique marble statue of great beauty, and well preserved to a certain degree. The head is severed from the body, but otherwise uninjured; the right arm is almost en- tirely wanting; the legs are broken at about the middle of the thigh, but the left thigh to the knee has been found. The statue represents a young man, perhaps in the character of Antinus. It stands on the right leg, and leans on the lefl elbow. A short dress rests on the left shoulder, and passes under it over the left upper-arm, which is pre- served, together with the hand, with the exception of the thumb. Dr. Dethier considers this statue to belong, in accordance with its character, to the times of Hadrianus to the end of the century. The head is en- tirely in the character of a portrait, and is said to have the greatest likeness to Marcus Aurelius Ca»ar, to judge from the coins of the period. The rich curly hair is brilliantly projected, but not veiy care- fully executed; but the treatment of the whole statue is excellent. The position and movement of the figure are so unmistakably given in what remains, that there would be no difficulty in the restoration. The fol- lowing are the measures; 16 centimetres, height of the head; 55 centi- mkres, of the torso ; thighs, 30 centimetres. Another interesting recent find is that of the bust of the Empress Plotina, as Juno, in lead, originally gilt, brought up in a net by a fisherman from the Boaphorus.

The Jncieni Land ofMidian. — ^The Eev. George Williams, writes Dr. Beke, communicated to the Section of Geography and Ethnology, on the 7 th of last October, a letter from Signer Pierotti, giving an account of a visit made by him, in company with Mr. Mashallum, Ghanoellier of the British Consulate of Jerusalem, to a tribe of Arabs inhabiting a portion of the Arabian desert, east of the Ghor. These people are described as being much superior to the ordinary Bedouins, and in several respects very different from them. They profess the Israelitish religion and de- clare themselves to be Ishmaelites, descended from the B«chabites, " the children of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law" (Judges i. 16; iv. 11); affirming that they reside in the original country of their forefathers. A peculiarity of this narrative, to which I desire to direct your attention, is, that these Bedouins are said to claim to be both Ismaelites and Eecha- bites (that is, Midianites), the two descents being adopted by them appa-

1863.] Miscellamei. 255

renUy without any distinction ; in which fact we find a pertinent illustra- tion of two texts of Scriptnre» to which I will briefly advert. We are told, in Gen. xxv. 18, that the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son by Hagar the Mitzrite, "dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Mitzraim, as thou goest toward Asshur." Now, as this country was that also of the Midianites, as already defined, we have here a consistent and intelligible explanation of a seeming contradiction in Qen« xxxvii. 26, 279 28, where the merchantmen, to whom Joseph was sold by his brethren, are first called Ishmaelites, and then Midianites ; in like manner we find cleared up the seeming inconsistency in Judges viii. 12 — 24, where the Midianites, under Zebah and Zalmunua, who were conquered by Gideon^ are described as wearing golden earrings " because they were Ishmaelites." Eor, as both people inhabited the same " east country," the two names would quite naturally have become convertible, just as we speak of Englishmen and Britons, — of Frenchmen and Gauls. With respect to these alleged Ishmaelites or Midianites of the present day, Mr. Williams stated, at the Cambridge Meeting, that he had written to Jerusalem for further information. Should this be confirmatory of the particulars here related, we may hope to be put upon the track of the wanderings of the children of Israel in the wilderness ; and may, above all, be led to the discovery of the site of "the Mountain of God in Horeb." — Jewish Chronicle.

The Remains of the ten Tribes, — ^We published some time ago the account of an English captain about certain Jews in China. We confess that the account appeared to us altogether improbable, especially as the name of the reporter was not stated, whereby it became impossible to inquire into the correctness of the account or to scrutinize the character of the narrator. Becently, however, the Jewish paper appearing at Pest, under the title of IHe Neuesle Post, published an account which reached our contemporary from a co-religionist cast upon some region north of China. The account runs thus : —

** We receive from a distinguished man, who formerly lived in Eussia and wrote several articles for Hebrew periodicals, a detailed report of a portion of the ten tribes. This man, compelled by a sad dispensation to quit his country, came in his wanderings to China, thence he bent his steps northward, until he reached a region surrounded with high mountains covered with perpetual snow, and whither a European but rarely strays. On entering the capital of the country a man wearing a high cap met him. He had a large beard, long, pendulous, side locks, and was pro- vided with a cuirass and spear. He asked the stranger in broken Hebrew whether he was a Jew. And being answered in the affirmative, he took him to his house and conversed with him in a language which was half Hebrew and Aramaic. He told him that he was chief rabbi and head of the ten tribes ; that his name was Eabbi Shalom Misrashi Hagiladi, being descended from the family of Gilead which had immigrated from Babel. He then took his guest to the synagogue, in which there was assembled a large number of Israelites. They were all armed, sat on the ground, and offered up their prayers in a language which consisted of Persian, Tartar,

256 MisceUame$. [April.

and Hebrew words. One of them acted as precentor^ and the others responded with a dreadfiil noise. When the new comer later conversed with them, he learned that these Israelites knew nothing of the destruction, nay, nothing of the existence of the second temple, baying immigrated into these distant regions before the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile.

The editor of the Nmiuten Pod farther states that he has reoeiTed simultaneously with a letter, bearing date November 21, of last year, also the photograph of the said chief rabbi, and that he has been promised an extensive and detailed account. We request our contemporary to publish the name of his correspondent, that accurate enquiries might be made into his veracity. — Israelii,

^Hte Samarikm PetUateudk^'—'We copy the following extract from a letter addressed from Jerusalem to the editor of the Oocidmt :— " I send you also for friendship's sake, a few leaves of our literary labours ; namely, I nmde a journey to the ancient Sichem in the spring of 1860, in the company of a German, Professor Levisohn, beloDgiog to the house of Israel, in the Bussian service, in order to see the old Sepher Torah, which was written by Abishua, the great grandson of Aaron. We were two weeks in the house of the Samaritan priest, Amram, who is with his congregation the custodian of this sacred book, which was twice unrolled before our eyes. The name of the holy scribe, together with the indi- cation of the place and time of its production, is contained in a kind of acrostic whidi is found in the fifth book of Moses (Deuteronomy) com- mencing with the Decalogue, and extends through two or three ' Amudim* from top to bottom. The writing is small, so that there are on an average in every ' Amud' seventy-two lines, and the whole number of * Amudim' is about one hundred and ten. The material Lb what we call parchment, although much older than this name. In many places it is torn, sewed together, patched, etc., similar to the people described in the eighteenth chapter of the prophet Isaiah, and its high antiquity is clearly indicated in the pages and the writing. The appearance is black and dark, and the blackness of the letters runs in many places into the colour of the material, or rather has almost disappeared. Upon the whole, about the half is yet legible. I need not tell you that the language is Hebrew, and the writing the ancient Hebrew charecters. But there are, when compared with our received text, very many and important variations which I have all copied. The leaves which I transmit you with this, are a fiicsimile copied by myself, from a very ancient MS., for there exists many (say about one hundred) copies of the above named ' Sepher Torah ;" this itself is ex* hibited, not unroUed, only a few times every year, whUe two others are used for public reading on Sabbath, etc. There are altogether in Sichem three of these scrolls, to wit, the original of Abishua and two more rsoeat ones; there are found, however, as said already, about one hundred copies in the fbim used before the invention of the art of printing.'*

r

THE

JOUKNAL

OP

SACRED LITERATURE

AND

BIBLICAL RECORD.

No. VL— JULY, 1863.

CASGE STANLETS LECTUBES OF THE JEWISH CHUBCH.-

Many histories of the Jews have been written from the days of Josephus to those of Dean M ilman and Dr. Ewald, and we could imagine a superficial observer asking what need we have of another. To such a question we should simply have to answer that it does not apply to the work of Canon Stanley, which is as he takes care to say, not a history, but lectures upon a history. It is true that the work follows a chronological order, and in- volves the statement of many historic facts, but it is rather a book* from which a history may be inferred, than a history. Chapters in the national life of the Jews doubtless form the text of the commentary here given to us, but these chapters are only given us in their broad outlines and some noticeable features. Whether the record has been always accurately inter- preted, or its lessons truly represented, is the proper task of the candid critic, whose office is to subject to criticism the very criticisms of an author. Dr. Stanley wishes us to remember, not only that he does not write a consecutive history, and yet aims to present the main characters and events of the sacred narrative in a form as nearly historical as the facts of the case will admit, but also that his intention has been to make his

* Leetureg on the History of the Jewish Church. Part I. Abraham to Samuel. By Arthur PenrhTn Stanley, D.D., Begins Professor of Ecclesiastical History m the University of Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. With Maps and Plaas. 8to, pp. 668. London : John Murray. 1863.

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. VI. S

258 Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church, l^^Jy

lectures strictly " ecclesiastical/' It is the history of the Jewish Church, he says^ of which his office invited him to speak. We are then to expect that special prominence will be given to the church life of the nation^ its movements^ its experiences, and its institutions. All this is very good, as an author has a right to limit and define his own plan, and we only name these points to shew what it is that Canon Stanley really professes to do or to undertake.

There are one or two other matters in the preface which should be noticed, as it seems to us, if only to shew what the author's avowed opinions thereupon actually are. He recognizes then the great importance of the historical element in the Jewish Scriptures, and he protests against the elimination of that ele- ment from the sacred narrative. We honour and applaud the recognition, distinct and unmistakeable, that the records contain so much true and important history, and the resolution to hold up that history as such, and as one of the great chapters in the world's annals. Some modern writers especially have rendered very valuable service in the same direction, and it is a sign of actual progress that it is so. The old allegorizing tendency still lingers in the popular mind, and a thousand pulpits are every Sunday vocal with those who " spiritualize," as they call it, the facts of Scripture history. This spiritualizing, or finding a double sense in every narrative of the Bible, is a very alluring and a very easy process, but it is fraught with mischief. We know that ^sop's fables are not true, and we can enjoy the '^ moral" by which their lessons are summed up. We know that the parables of our blessed Lord are not records of actual occurrences, and we can profit by the lessons of wisdom which they indicate or embody. We equally know that the narratives of Scripture are historical, and we ought to stop there rather than treat them like myths and allegories. The Swedenboi^an school, and many who repudiate it, seem to look on all sacred history as a panorama, in which every character and every occurrence has a hidden meaning known only to the initiated, or the enlightened. There is another school, and one perhaps more widely spread, which, without affirming the primarily typical character of the whole record, treats it as such. Others again make the ''sound an echo to the sense/' and, without any regard to the context, or to the primary meaning of a sentence^ adapt it and apply it as they think proper. Others, again, treat the Old Testament narratives and characters as prophetical. All these, it seems to us, are in error and do harm, and we say as much of every man who, without the warrant of Holy Scripture, makes a record eithef typical or prophetical. Far be it from na

1863.] Canm Stanley on the JewUh Church. 259

to condemn the nee of common sense in reading sacred history ; let historians and divines go down, if they cau^ to the hidden springs and causes of actions and occorreuoes ; let them expound the lessons which every Scripture record teaches ; let analogies and parallels be pointed out; and let everything else be done which can fairly be done for purposes of doctrine and instruction in righteousness; but let it never be forgotten that the Bible history is really a history. Sober-minded commentators may find moral and spiritual lessons in every page of Scripture, without doing violence to common sense. They who from one point of view interpret the Bible as they would any other book, may from another point of view be compelled to treat it as alone in literature, like the famed Phoenix among birds. We thoroughly sympathise with the language of Dr. Stanley when he sajrs, ''That earliest of Christian heresies — Docetism, or 'phantom worship' — the reluctance to recognise in sacred subjects their identity with our own flesh and blood, has at different periods of the Christian Church affected the view entertained of the whole Bible. The same tendency which led Philo and Origen, Augus- tine and Gregory the Great to see in the plainest statements of the Jewish history a series of mystical all^ories, in our own time has as completely closed its real contents to a large part both of religious and irreligious readers, as if it had been a collection of fables. Many who would be scandalized at ignorance of the battles of Salamis or Camnse, know and care nothing for the battles of Beth-horon and Megiddo.^' There are few, we trust, remaining among us, to whom the two follow- ing sentences are applicable : '' To search the Jewish records, as we would search those of other nations, is regarded as dangerous. Even to speak of any portion of the Bible as ' a history,' has been described, even by able and pious men, as an outrage upon religion.'' It is but fair to Dr. Stanley to quote one other sentence before we proceed. " In protesting against this elimi- nation of the historical element &om the sacred narrative, I shall not be understood as wishing to efface the distinction which good taste, no less than reverence, will always endeavour to preserve between the Jewish and other histories." He observes^ too, that he has endeavoured to trace the connexion between the Old Testament and the New, the Jewish and the Christian Church, the identity of purpose — the constant gravita- tion towards the greatest of all events — which, under any hypo- thesis, must furnish the main interest of the history of Israel.

There is yet another avowal contained in the preface, to which attention should be turned, as it is frequently illustrated in the course of the book. " Discussions of chronology, statistics,

s2

260 Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church. [Joly,

and physical science ; of the critical state of the different texts, and the authorship of the different portions of the narrative ; of the precise limits to be drawn between natural and supernatural, providential and miraculous, unless in passages where the exist- ing documents and the existing localities force the consideration upon us, I have usually left unnoticed. The only exception has been in favour of illustrations from geography." With regard to the rule and its observance we may say a word, and another with regard to the exception. The reasons for the rule are two, — a wish not to introduce distinctions which to the sacred writers were alien and unknown ; and because they were super- fluous and inappropriate within the limits of the plan laid down for the work. We doubt whether these reasons are of equal weight. Dr. Stanley more than rehearses, he comments upon and illustrates the sacred record, and is he just either to himself or to his readers, when he declines critically to investigate the perplexities and difficulties which he meets with? To us it seems that he has often placed himself in a false position by bis rule; it has either harassed his movements, or it has been ill observed. It has harassed his movements when he has been conscious of critical difficulties, and has yet -felt that he ought not to discuss them because his plan forbade it. The conse- quence has been, that he has had to ignore some highly interest- ing questions, or to get beyond them as best he might. Then the rule has been ill observed, because some things have been taken for granted when elucidation would have enabled the author at least to state his reasons for his conclusions. We hardly know what to say in reference to the frequent passages in which a difficulty is started, and passed over, with the simple intimation that there is such a difficulty. One would have sup- posed that the Regius Professor of History would have eagerly embraced every such opportunity in his prelections before a body of young men, mostly candidates for holy orders, to tell them more, — to tell them his own conclusions, and the reasons for those conclusions. Among the cases which occur, we remember that of the exodus. The lecturer says, " It is difficult to con- ceive the migration of a whole nation under such circumstances." He observes that Laborde, " with every desire of maintaining the letter of the narrative," reduces the numbers from six hun- dred thousand to six hundred armed men ; while Ewald defends the correctness of the original numbers, illustrating the event by the sudden retreat of four hundred thousand Tartars, under cover of a single night, from the confines of Russia to their native deserts, as late as the dose of the last century. Then comes what we must own appears to us a very unfortunate and

1863.] Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church, 261

discouraging senteDce: — ""We may leave the question to the critical analysis of the text and of the probabilities of the case^ and confine ourselves to \?hat remains equally true under either hypothesis/' And what is this ? Nothing more than that those who have seen the start of great caravans of pilgrims in the East^ may form some notion of the silence and order with which even very large bodies of men break up from their encampments and set out on their journey I This is more than tantalizing. If it could be taken for granted that the Israelites went out of Egypt '' armed -" nay, if it could be admitted that the exodus was an actual event at all, why should it be hinted that it was so utterly uncertain whether the Hebrew men were six hundred or six hundred thousand ? The best critics doubt whether the text says the men were "armed/' but any tyro in Hebrew scholarship knows that six hundred thousand is the number given in the original document. So summary a dismissal of one of the great objections of what is called rational criticism, is, to our mind, less to be approved than the passing over it in absolute silence. This is only one instance of the false position in which Canon Stanley places himself, by a rule which he fears to break, and cannot keep.

The rule under notice manifestly compels the author fre- quently to speak in a doubtful, hesitating, and uncertain tone, and this is beneath the dignity of that honourable chair which he so eloquently fills. It leads to another evil, and that is, to the utterance of critical opinions somewhat dogmatically in appearance, because the grounds of them are not properly laid open. This evil looks like the converse of the one previously named, and is of sufficient importance to deserve an illustration, or even two. Our first illustration shall be from the account of the golden calf, and the next from that of the lucid and shining appearance of the face of Moses. At page 150 we are told that Aaron, in the absence of his greater brother, was shaken, — " He framed a visible form, the likeness of the sacred beast of Helio- polis, and proclaimed it as ' the God which had brought them up from the land of Egypt.' An altar rose before it, like that which still exists beneath the nostrils of the sphinx ; a three days' festival was proclaimed, with all the licentious rites of song and dance which they had learned in Egypt.'' Our objec- tion to this passage is based upon the quotation it contains and its attendant note, '' That Elohim is singular appears both from the context in Exod. xxxii. 4, and also from the parallel in Neh. ix. 8." This note is not enough. Exod. xxxii. 2 reads " Up, make us gods, which shall go before us," where the Hebrew Elohim takes the plural verb " shall go ;" verse 4 reads, " These

262 Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church. [July«

be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt/^ and here the verb and pronoun are also plural. The same construction occurs in verse 8. It is true that in verse 5 Aaron's proclamation is ''To-morrow is a feast unto the Lord/' but are we justified in concludiog that in this proclamation he designated the calf by the name of Jehovah ? Whether he did or not, it is a simple fact that Elohim in verses 4 and 8 is plural because it is construed with a plural pronoun and a plural verb. Dr. Stanley, in another passage of dubious character, goes so far as to favour the polytheistic origin of the name Elohim as applied to the true God. Our reference is to pp. 22, 23, where, after saying that Elohim is the name by which the Deity is known throughout the patriarchal or introductory age of the Jewish church, he adds '' Elohim is a plural noun, though fol- lowed by a verb in the singular. When Eloah (God) was first used in the plural, it could only have signified, like any other plural, ' many Eloahs / and such a plural could only have been formed after the various names of God had become the names of independent deities; that is, during a polytheistic stage. The transition from this into the monotheistic stage could be effected only in two ways; either by denying altogether the existence of the Elohim, and changing them into devils — as was done in Persia, or by taking a higher view, and looking upon them as so many names invented with the honest purpose of expressiug the various aspects of the Deity, though in time diverted from their original intention. This was the view taken by Abraham/' Before finishing our quotation, let us say that we cannot for the life of us understand how polytheistic wor- shippers of Elohim could become monotheistic worshippers of Elohim, by denying the existence of Elohim and changing them into devils. Those who denied the existence of Elohim or '' many Eloahs,'' could not at the same time change them into devils. If they denied their existence, they might become Athe- ists; if they changed them into devils, they might become Yezidees; but how their doing either one or the other could make them monotheistic worshippers of one Elohim we do not see. To say the least, this is very loosely worded. As for the second point, that Abraham regarded the Elohim in the sense affirmed, we must finish our quotation ere we say anything of it. " Whatever the names of the Elohim," Canon Stanley goes on to say, '' worshipped by the numerous clans of his race, Abraham saw that all the Elohim were meant for iioA ; and thus Elohim, comprehending by one name everything that ever was, or ever could be, called divine, because the name by which the monotheistic age was rightly inaugurated : a plural conceived

1863.] Ca$ion Stanley on the Jewish Church. 263

and construed as a singular. From this point of view the Semitic name of the deity^ which at first sounds not only un- grammatical but irrational, becomes perfectly clear and intelli- gible. It is at once the proof that Monotheism rose on the ruins of a polytheistic faith, and that it absorbed and acknowledged the better tendencies of that faith/'

The previous passage is one which we cannot allow to pass unnoticed (we shall return to Exod. xxxii. 4 anon) ; it literally bristles with points which challenge animadversion, and we are only sorry that we have not space for its full discussion. What we may call the "Jehovah, Jove, or Lord'* theory, is very it>undly asserted, at least on behalf of Abraham. But what proof is there that he added up the sum of his supposed ances- tral gods, and found the total to equal "Elohim'' as one God? What evidence is there of any such incorporation of divinities in any age or nation? Does not all experience go to shew that nations with polytheistic faiths, divide and multiply their gods, and do not reduce them to one ? No passage in the Bible occurs to us in which the notion is favoured, that Gentile gods are only various aspects of the deity, and may become the one Lord when an Abraham arises to gather them up into one, and to worship them as one with a plural name. An apostle, who is quoted by our author in support of his view, assures us that the sacrifices of the Gentiles are offered unto devils and not unto God (1 Cor. x. 20, 21), and we strongly incline to the supposition that this is more correct. We must say further, that if Dr. Stanley means what we understand by this passage, that is, that Abraham was not only the first to use the name iElohim, but the Father and founder of Monotheism, we are very sorry fcM* him ; and if that opinion is true, we are very sorry for ourselves : sorry for him, because he must cease to regard as history the pages which tell us of Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, etc., the just men who " walked with God -/' sorry for ourselves, because we have thus far believed that Monotheism was the primary creed of die world, and was never lost even for a moment. Henceforth, it seems, we must think that '^ Mono- theism rose on the ruins of a polytheistic faith, and that it absorbed and acknowledged the better tendencies of that faith.'^ We would fain hope that we are mistaken, and that Dr. Stanley really intends something else ; yet, when we look at the mar- vellous beauty and transparency of almost every sentence in this volume, we feel that there can be little uncertainty, and that our interpretation is correct. That we may not do the author a wrong, we will add of the strange paragraph upon which we have been commenting, that it is confessedly a sum-

264 Canon Stanley on the Jetvisk Church. [July,

mary from Professor MuUer's Semitic Monotheism. Bigbt or wrongs we have never seen an argument to shake oar faith in the simple historic view of the continuity of monotheistic re- ligion from the beginning as we find it in the book of Oenesis.

For a moment we return to the passage in Exod. xxxii. 4, where the Hebrew *' Elohim'^ must be plural^ not singular as Dr. Stanley says, and as we see the Peshito translator rendered the verse. The Septuagint and Jerome have rightly retained the plural : '^ Hi sunt dii tui Israel, qui te eduxeruni de terra jEgypti" The passage in Neh. ix. 18 (not ix. 8) is certainly in the singular ; but no one will wonder at this who considers the chapter — a general rehearsal of Jewish history — in which exact- ness of citation was not to be looked for. We do not think the Begins Professor would appeal to such an allusion as a proof text for a disputed reading ; nor that^ on reflection^ he would quote it to justify an alteration in an undisputed text.

The rule to waive critical discussions, leads to the assertion of critical opinions for which no sufficient reasons are assigned. The word " Elohim '^ is not the only case to which we may appeal in illustration, and we therefore append another which will serve the same purpose. In Exod. xxxiv. 29 — 35, we have the account of Moses when he came down from Mount Sinai^ and we are told that his face shone. Our author says, ^' It was on his final descent from Mount Sinai, after his second long seclusion, that a splendour shone on his face as if from the glory of the Divine Presence ; which gradually faded away tiU, cois- cealing its extinction by a veil, he returned to the Divine Pre- sence, once more to rekindle it there.^^ A note reminds us that '' in the English, and most Protestant translations, Moses is said to wear a veil in order to hide the splendour.'^ In support of his own view reference is made to the LXX. and Vulgate, and to the Hebrew original. Now the English version of Exod. xxxiv. 33, is certainly indefensible, " And till Moses had done speaking with them he put a veil on his face ;^^ but we venture to doubt whether either Hebrew, Greek, or Latin would suggest to an ordinary reader that Moses put on the veil to hide the vanishing away of the splendour. Dr. Stanley has no such doubts, and more than that, he believes St. Paul was of the same opinion, and teaches us that Moses put on the veil not to cover up the glory, but to hide the loss of it. But surely when a criticism so contrary to the ordinary view is adopted, especially before such an audience, it ought to be defended by reasons which are proved to be reasons. We know how 2 Cor. iii. 13 might be pressed into this service, as by saying that Moses put a veil upon his face in order that the Israelites might not see the end

1863.] Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church. 265

of the glory which had passed away ; but we do not fancy it would be very difQcolt to shew that such an explanation is con- trary to the grammar and the whole chapter.

Other cases will present themselves in abundance, to shew the difficulties brought on by attempting to carry out an imprac- ticable rule. If not impracticable, it is untractable, and, '^ like a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke/' it kicks and starts aside. The reiterated attempts which are made to humour it do little good, and we confess that the only device we see for avoiding trouble hereafter, is to take it at once. What we mean is this : that to prevent being misunderstood by the general reader, and to justify opinions adopted, a much larger space should be assigned to criticism in the notes. When an author incorpo- rates into his work novel &nd startling, if not strongly disputed, interpretations, it is not enough for him to refer, in a note, to a text, or a version, or a brother author. The text may not be clear, the version may be erroneous, and the brother author may not be accessible. A commentary upon the Jewish church, and its history, can only be safely based upon the Bible, and must involve a lai^e amount of criticism. To say, *' I will not discuss critical, chronological or scientific matters,'^ is easy, and it seems like an admirable way to escape from difficulty. This it un- qnestionably does in the composition of the work, but it may be the means of treasuring up stores of critical materials, and weakening the power of a book for all time to come. Envious and captious reviewers, those modern giants Pope and Pagan, who sit and watch for unsuspecting literary pilgrims, roar with delight when they see a book like this of Canon Stanley's. Every page of it will be redolent of heresy, every paragraph a shallow brook that bubbles on, the whole of it a compound of error and presumption. In their eyes, excellencies will be defects, and, proceeding on the " no dealing with the Samari- tans '' principle, the volume will be condemned altogether. Far be it from us to imitate these green-eyed monsters, and to find no good in such books as the volume now before us. Its beauty alone ought to command respectful recognition ; and if " a thing of beauty is a joy for ever,'' this work will always cause pleasure to those who can appreciate the charms and graces of literary composition. There is in the volume much more than this to secure our approval and excite our admiration, as, for example, the numerous descriptions of localities and events, and the altogether frank and generous tone which pervades it. But these are aspects in which it will be viewed by the many who will read it, and, therefore, we shall dwell less upon them, although we could easily make them the basis of a panegyric.

266 Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church. [Jnly>

Inasmuch^ however, as our object is not so much to praise or to blame, as to make a few notes upon some noteworthy detaik and special features, we shall proceed to consider some other points, and, first of all, the acknowledged exception to the leading rule, of which we have spoken. That exception is in favour of illus- trations from geography. We have always admired the Suud and Palestine of our author ; and, much as we demur from some of its conclusions, we cannot but think it one of the most charm- ing and instructive books ever written upon its subject. Of that volume, abundant use has been made in this, and to it frequent additions have been made. Ever and anon, we come upon some panoramic view of scenes in Biblical history, so vivid and so transparent, that we almost seem to see the places, and the transactions which stand connected with them. It is only when the author's imagination finds in these scenes peculiar explana- tions of the sacred history, that we experience a diminution of our pleasure. Thus, for example, when, after a graphic sentence or two descriptive of Bethel, in connexion with Jacob's dream, we read : '^ In the visions of the night, the rough stones formed themselves into a vast staircase, reaching into the depth of the wide and open sky, which, without any interruption of tent or tree, was stretched over the sleeper's head,'' we ask ourselves if this is true. In Genesis xxviii. 12, we merely read : " And he dreamed; and, behold ! a ladder set upon the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven ; and, behold I the angels of God ascending and descending on it." It is hard to see what the isolated fragments of rock that were there could have to do with the particular form of Jacob's dream. Our far inferior acquaint- ance with Scripture geography does not often permit us to correct or alter the statements and arguments here advanced. A single instance occurs to us at this moment. In the Appen- dix I., at page 477, the true site of Haran is enquired into. Canon Stanley says : ^^ Till within the last year, the identity of the patriarchal Haran, with that in the north of Mesopotamia, had never been doubted." The doubts referred to, are those of Dr. Beke, who has urged the claims of a village near Damascus. The statement is hardly exact, for in an '' Essay on Bashan," by C. C. Graham, in the volume of Cambridge Essays, for 1858, p. 137, the question is raised. Mr. Gra- ham expresses the opinion that the traditional site of Haran is wrong, and that it ought to be looked for near Damascus. It is singular that Dr. Stanley, who quotes the essay, should have overlooked this circumstance. We mention it, although we do not agree with Dr. Beke, to shew that that gentleman is not the first who has entertained a similar opinion. Dr.

1863.] Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church. 267

Beke thinks Milton did not hold the common belief^ but the passage he quotes is obscure.

There is no particular necessity for our saying more about the topographical and gec^aphical discussions and illustrations, save to remark that we feel much obliged to the author for making an exception to his rule in their favour. It is the unavowed exceptions which rather require observation, and the cases in which the strongly debated criticisms of others are merely adopted with references to the authors of them. Nor do we think we can render a better service to our readers, than by looking a little at some of the passages which we have in mind. To examine them all would be a lengthy task, and it is not necessary, because a few specimens will shew to what kind of criticism the work is liable. Some have already been indicated ; and now, simply following the order they occupy in the volume, we shall pay attention to a few more. We do this, not only for reasons alr^Euly given, but because we think the kind and amiable soul of Canon Stanley has too generously conceded, in many cases, to those who can hardly be said to represent a believing criticism, too much weight and authority. The critical writers whom he quotes are not many, and they are usually men of deserved reputation ; but it is quite clear that their theological standpoint is by no means always that of orthodoxy.

It will be necessary for us to turn again to the beginning of the book, and there, in the introduction, we find something about special authorities, upon which we must make a note.

"Of course,^' says Dr. Stanley, "the main bulk of the authorities is to be found in the canonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures. It has been at various times supposed that the Books of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were all , written in their present form by those whose names they bear. This notion, however, has been in former ages disputed, both by Jewish and Christian theologians, and is now rejected by almost all scholars. It has no foundation in the several books themselves, and is contradicted by the strong internal evidence of their contents. To determine accurately the authorship and the dates of these and the other sacred writings is a question belonging to the same Biblical criticism, which has thus modified the opinion just men- tioned ; and to those who are called to enter into the details of such inquiries I gladly leave the solution of this problem.^'

Whatever else the learned Professor means by these sentences, he must mean that he does not receive the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, any more than he believes that Joshua and Samuel wrote the books which bear their names. We are sorry to find him mixing up together questions so different as the

268 Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church. [July,

authorship of the Books of Moses and of Samuel. We observe the same absence of minute discrimination in the manner in \?hich he speaks of the books "in their present form/^ If this is literally what is intended^ we have not much to say^ because we happen to think it very probable that Moses did not write the account of his own death and burial; but^ unfortunately, we suppose^ we believe that Moses gave us the Pentateuch sub- stantially as we have it. That he may have made use of exist- ing materials we admit, as also that sundry explanatory clauses have been inserted since his time, but beyond this we dare not go, and do not wish to go. Bight or wrong, we flatter ourselves that herein there are many scholars who agree with us. As it regards the Books of Joshua and Samuel, the case is different, and the question is a much more open one. So much has of late been written in defence of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch that we wonder to hear Canon Stanley speak as he does. Equally do we wonder to hear him classing '^ the other sacred writings'' under the same category, and telling us it belongs to Biblical criticism to determine their authorship as well as their date. To us it seems that the authorship of many of the books belongs to the domain of historical fact, and that criticism is no more in a position to decide it, or required to decide it, than to determine whether Canon Stanley wrote these Lectures on the Jewish Church; or that Livy and Tacitus, Thucydides and Herodotus, wrote the books which bear their names. There is, of course, certain internal evidence which bears upon the asserted age and country of a book, and by which traditional and historical testimony is estimated. Where all these agree no question is raised. But, after all, the evidence upon which we receive the authorship of many of the sacred books is mainly, and, perhaps, exclusively historical or tradi- tional.

At pages 44 — 46, we have an account of the interview of Abraham with Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High Ood. Now it is very apparent from this account that Melchizedek was a Monotheist, a worshipper of the one true God, and we do not see how the author can reconcile it with what he has already said of Abraham as the founder of Monotheism. Rather should we be inclined to regard this mysterious person as one in which the primeval Monotheism still survived amid the general defec- tion to Polytheism. Abraham held on to the ancient creed, and found in Melchizedek one of like faith with himself. In fact Dr. Stanley goes further, for in allusion to the worship still celebrated upon Mount Gerizim, and to the tradition that Melchizedek ministered there, says, '^What is now the last

1863.] Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church, 269

relic of a local and exhausted, though yet venerable, religion, was in those patriarchal times the expression of a wide all- embracing worship, which comprehended within its range the ancient chiefs of Canaan and the founder of the chosen people/' We do not ask for more than this, but we cannot reconcile it with the previous statement. True, the name by which Mel- chizedek calls God is not Elohim, yet the difficulty remains, becaase this first recorded priest worshipped the God of Abraham. " In considering the story of Israel in Egypt,'' observes Dr. Stanley, p. 81, '^ two complicated questions arise. The first refers to the relation of Israel to the dynasty of the Hyksos, or shepherd kings, of whom we read in Manetho. Were they the same? Or if different, did the shepherd kings precede, or accompany, or succeed, the settlement of the Israelites? The second question, partly dependent on the first, refers to the length of the period of the Israelite settlement. Was it two hundred and fifteen years (according to the Septuagint), or four hundred and thirty years (according to the Hebrew), or a thou- sand years according to the computation of Egyptian chronology, We need not enter on any detailed answer. Not only are the present materials too conflicting and too scanty to justify any certain conclusion, but there is, we may trust, a reasonable prospect that any conclusion now formed may be modified or reversed by fresh discoveries in Egyptian investigations." Con- cerning the Hyksos we have nothing to say, but we must object to the mixing up of this question with the other in the quotation. How long were the Israelites in Egypt ? is a question which is differently answered on Biblical grounds, and Dr. Stanley cites a number of texts as arguments for the two hundred and fifteen and the four hundred and thirty years respectively, the thousand years of certain* Egyptologers he is content to mention. So far well ; but why among his arguments for the two hundred and fifteen years, does he put the vague expression of Exod. xiii. 18, where the LXX. read " in the fifth generation ?" Why among the arguments for four hundred and thirty years does he put ''six hundred thousand ^^A^tTs^ men ?" Men able to bear arms, and fighting men, are not necessarily the same ; and besides his ''fighting men'^ and his "fifth generation," both represent one and the same Hebrew verse, and the same word in it. We will say no more of the arguments, but we beg the reader to look again at the last sentence of our extract, and say whether, so far as it is intelligible, it is a just verdict. What is meant by the closing words, we have failed to discover : " There is, we may trust, a reasonable prospect that any conclusion now formed may be modified or reversed by fresh discoveries in Egyptian inves-

270 Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church. [Joiy^

tigations/' The only idea which seems to glimmer through this mysterious oracle is, that Canon Stanley trusts our oonclusions respecting the question before him may be modified or reversed by arguments yet to be discovered by the Egyptologers. Great as is our sense of the importance of Egyptian monuments, if an inscription were to be found to-morrow saying that Israel was a thousand years in Egypt, we could not reject the sacred text in its favour. At present the Bible so speskks that there is some doubt as to the real number of years, but a child may see that that number is either two hundred and fifteen or four hundred and thirty ; hence it is th^t some have adopted one and some the other, but on Biblical grounds no third view is possible, and why should it be wished for on any other ?

We observe in passing that we are glad to see that Canon Stanley, in alluding to the tombs of Beni Hassan, rejects the notion so strangely and tenaciously held, that a procession de* picted there is intended to record the presentation of Joseph's brethren to Pharaoh.

Dr. Stanley quotes Lev. xxiii. 40, in the following sentenoe at p. 124, " The feast of tabernacles, or Succoth, was a feast not of tents, but of huts woven together from ' the boughe of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick teeem, and willows of the brook,' that 'all their generations might know that the Lord made the children of Israel to dwell in booths when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.^ '^ Dr. Benisch, in his reply to Bishop Colenso, says, at p. 2% " The original does not speak of ' boughs,' but of 'the fruit of goodly trees.' " The Bishop simply neglected to consult the Hebrew^ or he would have seen his error. Benisch, in his version, trans- lates, " And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of the tree hadar.^' This alone is sufficient to shew that the lawgiver did not point out these vegetables as the materials for the con- struction of booths, but for quite a different purpose. '' What this purpose was, the Bishop can to this day see in every synagogue throughout the world during the feast of taber- nacles. With the four vegetable productions in their hands, as mentioned in the text, the Israelites of this day rejoice before the Eternal their God seven days, just as their ancestors did in the temple of old." From this we gather that the Jews regard the feast of tabernacles as rightly observed, not by dwell- ing in booths or huts, but by taking boughs and fruit for flowers into their hands, and by other ceremonies commemorating the occasion of its institution. The modern Jewish view might at least hare been noticed, and the unusual rendering '^boughs" of a Hebrew word regularly signifying *' fruit" or "produce." We

1868.] Canon Stanley on the Jetoish Church, 271

do not say that Dr. Stanley is absolutely wrong in his conclu- sion^ but the mention of the feast of tabernacles seems to be an opportunity for that critical research which he has been so un- wiUing to nudertake.

In a note to a passage at p. 133, where the author says, " The books of Moses are so called (as afterwards the books of Samuel), in all probability, from his being the chief subject of them,'^ etc., he remarks, '^ even as applied to tessellated,^^ " there is some probability that the expression is derived from the varie- gated pavement of the later temple, which had then become the representative of the religion of Moses/' We cannot refer to the essay of Redslob, to which reference is made, but we really cannot understand how Canon Stanley could adopt such an etymology. Far more likely seems to us the derivation from the word Damascus, or damask, a word still used of certain ornamented or variegated objects, and which a comparatively ignorant and careless age might distort into Mosaic.

There is a graphic account of Balaam, in the course of which (p. 193) we have another of the passages which we have already complained of. ^'It has been often debated, and no evidence now remains to prove at what precise time this grandest of all its episodes was introduced into the Mosaic narrative. But, however this may be determined, the magnificence of the vision remains untouched; and it stands in the sacred record, the first example of the prophetic utterances respecting the world at large ; founded, like all such utterances, on the objects immediately in the range of the vision of the seer, but including within their sweep a vast prospect beyond.'^ Again, p. 194, '' We need not here discuss the vexed question of the precise time when the book of Deuteronomy assumed its present form.'' It is but fair to add, that here the author refers, in a note, to the opinion that Moses wrote the account of his own death and Irarial, as an example of interpretation now entirely superseded. He also observes in the text that parts at least of Deuteronomy have every appearance of belonging to that stage of the history and to no other.

Occasionally we have examples of what has been called the '^ art of sinking.'' Such, we think, is the description of Sinai at the giving of the law (p. 148, 149, and note 2). Such seems to be the following sentence (p. 214), " The Ammonites carried off as their trophy the ' iron bedstead ' (perhaps the basaltic cofiSn, like that of Esmanazar recently found at Sidon) of the gigantic Og."

Another unsatisfactory passage occurs at p. 215, where we read, " Whether the settlement of the eastern territory of Pales-

272 Canon Stanley on the Jewish Church, \jJ^^7>

tine was accomplished^ as the book of Numbers woald lead us to infei*, within a few months, or, as the books of Joshua and Judges would imply, in a period extending over many years^ must be left uncertain/^ Now if there is so great a discrepancy on the surface of the inspired record, why not try and investigate it?

The account of the fall of Jericho will fail to please many, but we must simply refer to it (pp. 233, 234). At page 241 the Sook of Jasher is called ^' one of the lost books of the original canon of the Jewish church.^' The standing still of the sun in Joshua is discussed (pp. 245 — 249), but in too vague and shadowy a manner. The author seems to believe that the language em- ployed in the Book of Joshua is poetical and figurative. Our taste may be rather peculiar, and we may be over fastidious^ but we very decidedly like plain speaking, and this is why we so often object to the phraseology of the eloquent Eegius Professor. Upon the page where the remarks upon the sun miracle are introduced we have this sentence concerning the same period, ^^ It is probable, indeed, from what follows, either that the sub- jugation and destruction were less complete than this narrative would imply, or that the deeds of Joshua's companions and successors are here ascribed to himself and to this time.'' Here we have language which is plain enough, but is it consistent with thoroughness to suggest historical inaccuracy, and not try to prove it as well ? The little note at the foot of the page does not answer our question. If we speak out our mind, we wish to do it respectfully, and because we regard it as a duty, and be- cause, in the noble words of Kepler which Dr. Stanley quotes, where after naming many whom he calls '^sacred,'' he adds, ''To me more sacred than all these is truth.'' We are only truthful when we say that where difBculties of a certain kind occur in the volume before us, we are seldom satisfied with the treatment of them. We are no less truthful in saying, that although we have not cited anything like all the passages we do not approve, we have been instructed and delighted with the mass of the book. It has been a real treat to us, and a relief after the heavy and ponderous style of some authors whom we have lately read. Where there is so much to approve it seems hardly right, perhaps, to confine our notes to objections, almost altogether ; but in these days of sharp and earnest criticism, it seemed as well that a friendly hand should do this through an organ which is less theological than critical, and which speaks to such as can estimate the value of what is said.

1868.] ( 273 )

ISAIAH ZVin., TBANSLATION AND NOTES.

The eighteenth chapter of Isaiah has loDg been a crux inter- pretum, and has exercised to very little purpose the wits of a host of commentators. The general bias has been towards a mystic interpretation. Either disdaining the letter^ as beneath the notice of a spiritual man, or despairing the discovery of any satisfactory literal sense, writers of this class have thrown all into the regions of fancy, and wasted their time and the patience of their readers in specidations on the object of the passage as a yet unfulfilled prophecy. Yet there are not wanting a few traces^ even among the fathers, of a common-sense view of the matter ; and building on these as a foundation, we propose to shew that the prophecy long since received its full literal accomplishment. And indeed we very much doubt whether we are justified in looking for any other. Certain it is, that we shall be groping in the dark, if we speculate on any secondary interpretation before we have first firmly established the primary.

At the head of the mystical interpreters stand Eusebius (315) and Jerome (390). For though these fathers do seem to have acknowledged some little literal reference (and this they take to be to Egypt), yet they go off on their favourite hobby, and make us either smile or sigh at their mysticism. Jerome inconsistently blames Eusebius for this. But he himself tells us that the winged cymbal, as he translates tsilisal kenaphaim, is the heresies of the Christian Churchy no better than a tink- ling cymbal (1 Cor. xiii. 1). Beyond the rivers of Ethiopia means, surpassing all men in impiety. The boats of the heretics are paper boats, and of equal durability. And so on through t)ie whole chapter.

Ashamed of such rubbish, modem commentators of this school have generally taken refuge in generalities, and been con- tent with telling us that the whole chapter relates to *' Anti- christ.*' If they go no further than this they are tolerably safe from refutation : now and then, however, a bolder spirit will venture on a more definite application, only to suffer a total discomfiture. About the end of the last century, Edward King^ a man of some repute for learning and piety, and for some years President of the Society of Antiquaries^ shocked at the enor- mities of the French Revolution, published two tracts,* in which he referred many prophecies to the events then passing; and^

' Oar copy ia entitled, Bemarka on the Signs of the Times. Second Edition. Ixmdon : 1798. 4to. It was foUowed by A Supplement to the Remarks on the Signs cfths Times, with many additional remarks. London : Feb., 1799. 4to.

NBW SBBIES. — ^VOL. III., NO. VI. T

274 A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. [July^

among others^ our present chapter. This particular reference drew forth an answer from Samuel Horsley, Bishop of Bochester, who^ in a tract^ of no great critical learnings but some common sense, shewed the impossibility that France should be " the land overshadowing with wings/' as held by King. It was only na- tural that Horsley, with his wel)*known bias, while he condemned King's vagaries, should continue to refer the whole to " Anti- christ/' Blinded by this prejudice, he has not taken much pains to develope the literal interpretation of the passage.

In our own day, and xmder somewhat similar circumstances of excitement from passing events, one or two persons have maintained that " the land overshadowing with wings," in this prophecy, is no other than our own country !' The marvellons absurdity of placing England ^^ beyond the rivers of Cush,'' and of crossing the Straits of Dover in " vessels of bulrushes," seems to be no obstacle to these gentlemen. Their notions are not worth the trouble of a serious refutation ; and we shall waste no time upon them, but proceed to shew that there always was a more sane view of the meaning of the chapter.

I. Jerome (390), before he goes off into the mystical non- sense above mentioned, gives his ideas of the literal meaning. The land, he says, is Egypt, which sends ambassadors in boats of papyrus to the Jews, the people scattered and peeled, pro- mising them help against Nebuchadnezzar (?); but in vain, for a great destruction (ver. 5, 6) shall fall upon Egypt, terrified by which, Israel shall henceforth trust in the Lord only (ver. 7). This opinion has been adopted by many, both ancient and mo- dem commentators. But it is sufficient refutation to say that Egypt was not beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, and that boats of papyrus could never have made the voyage to any part of Pales- tine, even supposing the ordinary communication to have been by sea, which it certainly was not.

II. Procopius of Gaza (520), in his Commentary on Isaiah, gives the preceding as the view of some who had gone before him, except that he makes the Egyptians the nation scattered and peeled. But he has mixed up with this another reference, which made the Assyrians under Sennacherib the sufferers at the great disaster indicated in ver. 6, 6. He had perhaps bor- rowed this from Theodoret' (485), who held that the people trodden down were the Israelites ; the wasting rivers, the Assy-

* Honley's tract is entitled, Critidal DisquisUUms on the Eighteenth Chapter of Isaiah. In a letter to Edward King, Esq. London : 1799. 4to.

* Walter Chamberlain. laaiah's VaU to England, being an £zpo8iti<m of Isaiah xriii. London : 1860. Syo. Another writer to whom we may refer is Dr. Camminff.

* Op., t. u., p. 70. Lut. Par. : 1639.

1868.] A New TruwhHm ^ Isaiah xviii. 275

rians^ whose destraction is foretold in ver. 5^ 6 ; and the conse- quent rejoicing of Israel in ver. 7.

This yiew has with some modifications been adopted by most modern commentators who have taken the trouble to inqaire into the literal sense of the passage. Yitringpa"^ thinks that even the wilMly blind cannot help seeing in ver. 5, 6, the destruction of Sennacherib's army. So also Lowth^ with whose views we substantially agree^ though we differ from him in some minor points^ and hope we have thrown light on one or two matters which he was compelled to leave in doubt. These will be fiiUy set forth in the notes to our translation.

The authorized English version is as follows :^

Woe to the land shadowing with wings^ which %» beyond the rivers of Ethiopia r

That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upoa the waters, 9ay%ng.^ Oo, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled^ to a pec^le terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted oat and trodden down, whose land the rivers have spoiled I

All ye inhabitants of the worlds and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign qq th/B mountains ; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye.

For so the Jjord said unto me, I will take my rest, and I win consider ia my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs, (sad like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.

For afore the harvest, when the bad is perfect, and the sour grape is ripening in the flower, he shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning hooks, and take away on^ cut down the branches.

They shul he left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the beasts of the earth : and the fowls shall summer upon them, and all the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them.

In that time shall the present be brought unto the Lord of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people ter- rible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the Loan of hosts, the mount Zion.

New Translation.

Alas I for the land of the winged Tsiltsal ! Which is beyond the rivers of Cush.

Despatch thoa ambassadors on the sea. And in boats of papyrus on the fece of the waters :

' CampegiuB Yitringa. OommefUaritu in Jetaiamj vol. i., p. 213.

t2

276 A New Trafulation of Lsuah xviii. [J^uly^

Go 1 ye rapid messengers ! Unto a nation scattered and peeled. To a people terrible once and still, A nation measured and trbdden down. Whose land the Naharaina have spoiled.

All ye dwellers in the world I And inhabitants of earth ! When he raiseth a banner on the mountains, behold ! And when he bloweth with a trumpet, hear 1

For thus spake Jehotah :

To myself will I give rest, And consider in my own habitation. When the heat is dear upon the Nile, And dewy the mist in the day of harvest.

For before harvest, when the bud is complete. And its flower is ripening into the grape ;

He will cat off the shoots with pruning hooks. And the branches remove, — cut away.

They shall be left together.

For the fowls of the mountains.

And for the beasts of the earth : And the fowls of the mountains shall summer upon them. And all beasts of the earth upon them shall winter.

At that time shall a gift be brought Unto Jehovah, the Lord of hosts,

A nation scattered and peeled. Even some of a people terrible once and still, A nation measured and trodden down. Whose land the Naharaina have spoiled,

To the dwelling of the name Of Jehovah, the Lord of hosts.

The Mount of Tsion.

To the previous translation we may venture to append a metrical paraphrase.

I. Ah I the sunny lands that lie Ethiopians rivers nigh, Haunted of the fatal fly, —

Ah ! for Meroe. On the swollen waters high Bid thy swiftest envoys fly ; Let the rushen vessels hie

Up the Nile's blue sea.

1868.] A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. 277

II. Let the tidings swift be borne To a people peeled and torn ; Mighty once, though now forlorn.

Mighty once, and still : Measured out by haughty foe, Trampled down, whUe o^er them go AssHUR^s floods in overflow.

Working all their wiU.

in. Mark, ye dwellers in the world. When his banners are unfurled ; Hark to the defiance hurled

By his trumpets shrill : Thus Jehovah spake to me, " I will rest, and quiet be, Meditating tranquilly On my holy hill.

lY. ^* When the harvest sunbeams bright. Glow by day ; and in the night Dewy are the mists that light

On the azure Nile.'' For before the harvest day. When the bloom hath falFn away. And through all the vineyard gay Swelling clusters smile :

V. He his wrath shall execute : Ruthlessly each rampant shoot He shall lop, — the blasted root

Scarcely shall he spare. There shall they be cast away. Of each mountain beast the prey ; And upon them there shall stay

All the fowls of air.

VI. There they all shall find their meat ; Winter through the beasts shall eat ; And the birds in summer heat

There shall take their fill. Then an ofiering shall be borne Of a people peeled and torn, Mighty once, though now forlorn.

Mighty once, and still.

VII. Measured out of haughty foe.

Trampled down, while o'er them go Asshur's floods in overflow.

278 A Ntvb IVarMaUon ^ Islttaii xvia. i[Jtdy»

Working all their will. They JbhoVah's praise shall sing " Gkwious He ! Of hosts the king !'' And an offering shall they bring

Unto Zion's hiU.

The references in the succeeding annotations are mostly to the Authorized Version.

Woe to the land.] — There are two different views taken by translators of the meaning of the particle nn in this place. The Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac, Chaldee, Vulgate, German, Junius, Montanus, Italian, Belgic, Noldius, French, Spanish, Dathe, Jenour, etc., agree with the English version in looking upon it as a denunciation. On the other hand, Fag- ninus, Munster, Castalio, Oalvin, Vitringa, Lowth, Doeder- lein, Gesenius, etc., consider it as simply a cry to attract attention ; such as Ho 1 or the like. Tympe, in his notes to Noldius, maintains that the primitive idea implied by the word is that of grief and commiseration. We agree with him thus far, — that in sp^iking of, and not to, persons and things, "vi should be taken for Alas for them ! but mtist maintain in oppo- sition to him that, when addressed to a peiBon, it is simply a cry to attract Ms notice. In some distances it will be difficult or altogether impossible to determsne whether the words are addressed to, or spoken of, a person. Thus in Isaiah x. 6 it is doubtful whether the Assyriau is addressed -or spoken of; and, consequently, whether we should translate, Alas for the Assy- rian ! or. Ho I thou Assyrian I We incline to the latter, the abrupt change of person at the end of the verse notwithstanding. Similarly Isaiah xxix. I, may be taken either for Alas for Ariel! or Ho ! thou Ariel I But in the following passages the address is clear : Isaiah Iv. 1, Ho I every one that tlursteth ! Jer. xlvii. 6, Ho I thou sword of the Lord ! Zech. ii. 6, Ho ! ho ! come forth and flee. Zech. ii. 7, Ho ! Zion ! deliver thyself. While in most of the other passages, in which it is found, it is clearly an expression of commiseration : 1 Kings xiii. 30 ; Jer. xxii. 18, AJas for my brother 1 Isaiah i. 4, Alas for the sinful nation I Jer. xlviii. 1, Alas for Nebo ! Ezek. riii. 3, Alas for the fool- ish prophets I Nahum iii. 1, Alas for the bloody city ! Hab. ii. 6, Alas for him that increaseth what is not his ! Thus we see that it is nowhere necessary to assume the sense of Woe to ! so generally adopted by the translators. To return to the passage before us, it must be «confeBsed that we cannot from the words considered by themselves determine whether they are spoken of or to the land in question. We must therefore for the present

1863.] A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. 279

leave it donbtfdl whether the correct version should be^ Ho ! thou land I or Alas for the land I hoping to be able to shew here- after that the latter agnees better with the general sense of the prophecy.

Which is beyond the rivers of Cusk.] — As the meaning of the latter part of the first clause of the verse depends very much on the view taken of the second clause^ we proceed to consider this first. And h«re we cannot but comi^ain of the general careless- ness exhibited by translators in the treatment of such particles as -xxsn, here rendered by beyond in the English Version. This is the usnal version, and is adapted by the Sept., Sym., Vulg., Pagn.y Munst., Casta!., Montan., DoederL, etc., and is true as far as it goes, though not the whole truth. But Yitringa and Dathe have citra, asnd Luther dieeseits=on this side ; and Juoios, Belg., and LowthdiffiBr from both ilke preceding, and render by tiie unraeaning secuiidum=along, bordering upon. But can it be l^at the term is so absmdly indefiaite ? Assuredly not. We ha¥e no hesitation in pronouncing these latter trans- lations unjustifiable ; and we return to the &Bt, taken however with a modification. In reality, no preposition at all, but a sub- staotive tas^ .prefixed to aiK>ther substantive is equivalent to the Latin compounds with trans. Thus qui trans Bhenum inoolunt is not '' who live beyond the Rhine,'' but '' who inhabit the Trana-Bhine.''-^ In like manner in Hdbrew, tiie ymi xja is the Trans- Jordim or Pensa in its widest sense; the Twrov is the Trans-Euphrates or Mesopotamia ; — the terms in all cases hav- ing reference to the position of the speaker. Thus in the king of Persia's decree in Ezra and Nehemiah, the Trans-Euphrates is Syria, which is bej^ond that river in respect of Snsa. And thus too Moses would natuirally call the west of Jordan the Trans-Jordan, as he does in Deut. iii. 25, etc., though it is the east which is usually so denominated.

But the great quarrel we have with the translators and com- mentators is their neglect of the prepositions prefised to such compounds as pmnsv: as if there were no diffieience whether 1 in, ior D frcmi, preceded them. The fact is that both have their distinct and proper meanings here as elsewhere. With the former the phrase becomes in the Trans- Jordan ; with the latter, from the Trans-Jordan, though o is sometimes used where English idiom would require on or it, as in the Latin phrases, a latere, a dextro corou, ete.

/ Similarlj in Axabic writers, the coantry north of the Sihiin or Ozns, — ^the tflms-oadana of Latin writer8,-~a0 oalled j^\ \j^ t« Mft-war&-al-Nahar (pro- nounocd Mi-warAn-nahar), i. e.^ what ifl beyond the river.

280 A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. [J«ly>

Let as proceed to apply this to a few passages in which the meaning is either incorrectly or imperfectly given.

Numb. xxi. 3. They removed (and pitched) from the Trans- Amon.

Joshua xxiv. 3. Took your father Abraham from the Trans- Euphrates.

xxii. 7. Among their brethren from the Trans- Jordan (aTo).

xxiv. 15. Your fathers that were from the Trans-Euphrates.

2 Sam. X. 16. The Syrians that were from the Trans- Euphrates (np).

1 Chron. xix. 16. The Syrians that were from the Trans- Euphrates. '

Job i. 19. There came a great wind from across the desert.

The signification is somewhat altered by the particle ^ pre- fixed to the word denoting the boundary. In such cases o pre- fixed to "m is much the same with the Latin de or ex, implying some or a portion of^ answering to the old English of in such phrases as^ Oive ns of your oil ; while the S signifies in respect of^ and may be represented by of. Thus Numb. xxii. 1^ And they encamped in the ^Arabah of Moab^ [a portion] of [the country on] the other side [in respect] of the Jordan of Jericho.

Numb, xxxii. 19. We will not inherit of the other side of the Jordan . . . our inheritance is fallen to ns of the other side of the Jordan eastward. So at least runs the Samaritan and several MSS. ; the printed Hebrew omits the V in the second clause. See also Numbers xxxii. 32.

Deut. XXX. 13. Nor is it of the other side of the sea ; t . e., not of the products of the country beyond sea, — not a foreign production.

Joshua xiv. 3. Joshua gave them an inheritance at the other side of Jordan.

1 Sam. xiv. 1. Let us go over to the post of the Philistines, who are (rather than which is) of the other side.

It follows from all this, that in the passage under considera- tion the full meaning is the land . . . which is [a portion] of the other side of the rivers of Cush. And as a nearly similar idea is conveyed by the ordinary translation, which is beyond the rivers of Cush, this may be allowed to pass.

The rivers of CusK\ . — Michaelis and others are of opinion that Cush is Southern Arabia. But this is utterly disproved by the very words here employed ; for few facts in the geography of Arabia are better established than that it does not possess a single tT3 or permanent river, all its waters being water-torrenta ^. There remain then to be considered the African Cush= Nubia, Abyssinia, etc., and, secondly, the country between the

'

1868.] A New Translation of Isaiab xviii. 281

Gihon and Tigris^ called Cosh in Oen. ii. 14. In the former case the rivers of Ciish would be the Tacazze and the Blae and White Niles ; in the latter^ the Gihon (either the Kerkhah or the Diyalah) and the Tigris. We can have no hesitation in preferring the former interpretation ; since, except in the passage above referred to, there is no example of the application of the name Cash to the country east of the Tigris. The land there- fore which is beyond the rivers of Cash is doubtless Nubia, with its dependencies at Abyssinia/ etc., and chiefly the so-called island of Meroe, the modem Jezirah between the Tacazze and the Bahr-al-Azreq.

To resume then, the whole line may be thus paraphrased : Which is a portion of the country beyond the rivers of Nubia. And this being settled, we must now seek for some explanation of the preceding line which shall correspond to this interpreta- tion, and equally describe the same region.

The land overshadowing with wings. "] — ^The commentators are here divided in opinion as to whether Egypt or Nubia is the country intended : we have seen that the latter interpretation must be accepted, since it is impossible that on any probable hypothesis as to the position of the speaker Egypt should be beyond the rivers of Cush. However, it will be well to give all the opinions on the subject, which we may conveniently classify according to the view taken of the derivation and meaning of the word ^s^.

I. The majority derive from ^s=shade: but they differ widely in their interpretations.

1. Some take it as an active participle, overshadowing with wings, and of these by this phrase

a. Castalio and others understand simply great ; /8. Calvin, Ostervald^ Haheisel, etc., protecting others, spe- cially Israel.

2. Others take it in a passive sense, overshadowed with wings, which

a, Junius, Piscator, Grotins, Vitringa, Dathe, and others explain of the position of Egypt, overshadowed by the two ranges of hills bounding the valley of the Nile.

/8. The Chaldee, Luther, and Munster, refer to the NUe, crowded, and as it were overshadowed by the sails of boats, which they suppose to be figuratively called wings.

7. Le Moyne is singular in supposing d^dss to represent the name of the god Kniiph, and accordingly translates, oversha- dowed of Knuph.

f The Arabic has dJL^^S j\^\ the riven of Abjssmia.

2S2 A New TVanslation qf leaiah xviii. [Aprils

d. A third party, Vogt^ EocheTy amd I^Onrille take it in a neuter sense^ for casting a shadow both ways ; and suppose it to relate to the Amphiscii {Of/ut^i^Moi), or dwellers beltveen the tropics,

II. The •second class of commentators derive the word from Vct^, to tiQgle or rattle ; and among these the fayourite explana- tion is —

1. That of the Vulgate (i.e., Jerome) adopted by fioehart, Huet) Le Clerc, Lowth, etc., namely, the land of the winged cymbal ; i. e., say they, the sistrum of the Egyptians.

2. Symmachus seems to have held this derivation, though his 6 17V09 irrepeoro^ is unintdOiigible.

8. Doederlein makes a verb of it ; he whirrs with his wings^ who sends ambassadors beyond the rivere, etc., understandings Tirhakah.

4. Michaelis in bis German Version puts forward the sin- gular notion of asi -allusion to the fable of the inhabitants of the tropical regions hearing the whirr of the wings of the sun 1

III. The author of the great Arabic Lexicon, called the

Qamus^ gives Jlail? as a synonym of ,ji«9=ships. This seema to be the origin of —

1. The LXX.^8 m\ouDv *rrrepvye;, wings of ships (Ar., ^tf^Usj-l

2. As well as of the Chaldee's first explanation, — the land to which men go in ships.

IV. Lastly, we come to those who take ishs for the name of an insect : a sense in which, though with different vowel points attached, it is used in Deut. xxviii. 42. In that passage it is usually, but hypothetically, translated locust. Michaelis (supp.^ 2094) would have it the mole-cricket,^ without adducing any evidence of that animal's existence in Palestine ; and he sug- gests that the same insect may be intended in the present pas- sage, which idea is adopted by Schelling.

We believe that the opinion of the insect nature of the Vs^ is the true one, though the particular animal intended has been mistaken. Michaelis himself hints at another explanation, but so slightly as to shew that he had no confidenoe in his own suggestion. You may too, says he (supp., 2097), speculate on flies ; one kind of which, very troublesome to the Abyssinians^ Bruce has mentioned. The identity of the Tziltzid of Isaiah with the Abyssinian Oad-fly had occurred to ourselves before we

* The existence of the mole-cricket in Palestine is highly improbable, since it is never foand except in wet situations on the banks of canals and ditches. See White of flelbome, letter ac.

1868.] A New JVmdaii^ ^ Ifttiali xriii. 888

were aware that Miehadis had thus ftoggested it ; bat we will- iBgly yield to bim whatever priority the abo^'-quoted remariL nay entitle him to. That he did not work the idea out is not to be wondered at, when we consider the suspicion with which Brace's statements were so h>ng nndeservedly regarded.

But before we proceed to discoas the animal intended, it will be well to shew how entirely mnsatisfadtory are all the other proposed explanations. In the first place, we most reject with- out hesitation all tiie interpretations groanded on the hypo- them that Egypt is the country intended. For the land in question is ezpr^Briy, as we have seen, stated to be a portion of the other side of the rivers of Cash ; and Egypt can by no pos- sibility be beyond such rivers in respect oif Jndie^ whatever Cash or the riwrs may be. On thi^ ground, then, we reject No. I., 2, though («) weald otherwise be not improbable ; while (/^ is no peculiarity of the Nile, and (7) is almost absurd. On this ground, then, we reject No. II., 1, which indeed merely requires an inspection of the figure of the Sistrum to refute itself. The explanations ttnder No. I., 1, labour under the dis- advantage of want <jS precision, since it was no more true of Cush than of several other nations that it was great and capable of protecting ; and a similar objection applies to the explana- tions, if they deserve that name, under No. III. The view, No. I., 3, would be probaUe, were it not far beyond the geo- graphical views of those days. No. II., 3, sets all laws of Hebrew poetry and oonstraction at ^kefianoe ] and of No. II., 4% we can only say that it is quite unworthy of the usual sobriety of its author.

Let ns then revert to the insect theory. The *afm of Deut. xxviii. 42 (pointed by the Masora so as to •read Tzel&tzal), is presumed to be an insect destructive to vegetation. But, first, let it be weU understood that we have no knowledge whatever of its natnre, except by inference from the context ; and that in conaequenee it is not even certain that it iib an insect. And, secondly, let it be observed that many traDslators, our own among the number, writing under the presumption that some kind of locust was intended, have somewhat strained the sense. For it is mat 'ahall the locust consume,' but, ^ Every tree of thine^ and the froit of thy ground, shall the Toel&tzal possess.' This Slay indeed aignify tibat the Tzel&taal should possess, and, in accordance with its nature, oonsnme them; but it may with at least ieqmd probability be taken to mean that the inhabitants should be oompelled to abandon their lands in consequence of their occupation by an animal noxious, not to trees, but to men and cattle. Surely possessing nations and cities (Deut. ix. 1,

284 A New Tnmslaium of Isaiah xviii. [April,

and xi. 23) does not imply either the devouring of one, or the destruction of the other. Setting, then, aside the difference of the assigned vowel-points as of no weight in the argument, we have quite as much right to believe that the Tzel&tzal of Dent, xxviii. 42 is the same as the Tziltzal of Isaiah xviii. 1, as others claim to regard them as different, especially since the addition of otD3D, of wings, or of the two wings, indicates to a certain extent the winged nature of the Tziltzal. And thus if either the Tzel&tzal or Tziltzal be an animal and an insect at all, we have as much reason for referring it to the Mosquito or the Grad-fly tribe, as to that of the locusts, or other herbivorous or granivor- ous destroyers.

Having thus, as we trust, shewn the unsatisfactoriness of all other explanations, and the absence of any h priori objection to the insect theory, we may boldly profess our belief that the Abyssinian fly of Bruce is the thing intended, at least in Isaiah xviii. 1, if not also in Dent, xxviii. 42. Bruce himself seems to have been of this opinion in respect of the latter passage ; for, speaking of the fly in Isaiah vii. 18, he says, ^' The Chaldee Version is content with calling this animal simply Zebub, which signifies the fly in general, as we express it in English. The Arabs call it Zimb in their translation, which has the same general signification. The Ethiopian translation calls it Tsalt- salya, which is the particular name of the particular fly in Geez, and was the same in Hebrew.'' Now if this statement is cor- rect— for we have no means of verifying it — it is evident from the concluding words that Bruce believed that the ^rahm of Dent. xxviii. 42, was the animal intended; and that the Ethiopic translator of Isaiah vii. 18 considered the allusion there to be the terrible Gad-fly of his own country. Thus then the fly, that is in the uttermost parts (crsp) of the rivers (onM'sNiles) of Egypt, will not, as Bosenmiiller supposes, be the Mosquito of the Delta, but the Gad-fly of the Tacazze and Bahr-al-Azreq.

This view of Bruce has not hitherto attracted the attention it deserved; partly from the general disposition to regard his statements with suspicion ; and partly from its being supposed that an insect so small and apparently insignificant, could hardly have been adopted as a prophetical emblem for the power of the Ethiopian princes Sabaco and Tirhakah. But the latter objection is quite overruled by the obviously similar description of the Assyrian power by the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And the doubts respecting Bruce's statements either have already dissolved, or are fast melting away before the light thrown upon eastern and interior Africa by the progress of modern (iiscovery. His despised Zimb or TsaJtsalya is now found to play so

I

1863.] A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. 285

important a part in the equatorial regions of Eastern Africa, that we need no longer wonder at its being adopted by Isaiah, as the emblem of Abyssinia. Under the name of Tsetse or Isitse it is only too well known, and too much an object of dread both to European traveller and native stock-keeper. We shall ap- pend to this paragraph some extracts relating to this insect pest, — ^the Olassinia morsitans of entomologists. It may be remarked that its name Tsetse shews evident affinity to the Tsintziya of the Amharic, and Tsaltsaliya of the Oeez dialect ; as well as to the Tziltzal or Tzel&tzal of the Bible. The rAsn» (perhaps pro- nounced Tzenhatzalah) of the Samaritan Version seems to con- nect the varieties in the orthography. We may even venture to suggest that the Phoenicians or Carthaginians may have carried into Italy this name for the terrible Gad-fly, — adopted by the Romans in the form Asilus : just as it may well be believed that the same people carried to Greece the name nsnsn hatzir'ah for a similar animal, — written ourrpo^i by the Greeks.

Note on the Tsetse. Bruce's account of the Zimb is as follows : — " It is in size very little larger than a bee, of a thicker proportion, and has wings which are broader than those of a bee, placed separate like those of a fly; they are of fine gauze without colour or spot upon them. The head is lai^e; the upper jaw or lip is sharp, and has at the end of it a strong pointed hair, of about a quarter of an inch long : the lower jaw has two of these pointed hairs; and the pencil of hairs when joined together, makes a resistance to the finger nearly equal to that of a hog's bristle. Its legs are serrated on the inside, and

the whole covered with brown hair or down He has no

sting, though he seems to me rather of the bee kind ; but his motion is more ri^id and sudden than that of the bee, and re- sembles that of the Gad-fly in England. There is something peculiar in the sound or buzzing. It is a jarring noise together with a humming; which induces me to believe it proceeds, at least in part, from a vibration made with the three hairs at the snout. As soon as this plague appears, and their buzzing is heard, all the cattle forsake their food, and run wildly about the plain till they die, worn out with fatigue, fright, and hunger. No remedy remains but to leave the black earth [where they breed] and hasten down to the sands of Atbara ; and there they remain while the rains last, this cruel enemy never daring to pursue them farther. Though his size is as immense as is his strength, and his body covered with a thick skin, defended with strong hair, yet even the camel is not able to sustain the violent punctures the fly makes with his pointed proboscis. He must lose no time in removing to the sands of Atbara, for when once

n

286 A New Tratuilatum of Isaiah xviiL [Aprils

attacked by this fky, his body, head, and legs break oat into large bosses which swell, break, and probably to the certain destruc- tion of the creature All the inhabitants of the sea coast of

Melinda down to Cape Gnardefris, to Saba, and the south eoast of the Bed Sea, are obliged to put themselves in motion and remove to the next sand in the beginning of the rainy season to prevent all their stock of cattle being destroyed. This is not a partial emigration ; the inhabitants of all the countries from the mountains of Abyssinia to the confluence of the Nile and Astaboras northwards, are once a year compelled to change their abode, and seek protection in the sands at Beja; nor is there any alternative or means of avoiding this. Providence from the banning, it would seem, had fixed its habitation to one species of soil, being a blaek fat earth, extraordinarily fruitful; and small and inconsiderable as it was, it seems from the first to have given law to the settlement of the country.''^

We must here call attention to the exact correspondence of the geographical limits of Bruce^s Zimb with those of Isaiah's Tsiltaal. The '' land of the Tziltzal '' does not begin tiU '' be- yond the rivers of Cush :'* the land of the Zimb is exdueivdy south of the confluence of the Nile and Atbara or Taoazxi.-'' And if any one still doubts the probability of a fly being adopted as the emUem of a country, let him observe Bruce's unwitting testimony,-**(for Bruce had no idea of the mention of his animal in Isaiah xviii. 1,)— to the important part it plays in Abyssinia. In the efiects of the bite. Brace's account differs from that quoted below, but no more than might be expected from Brace's deficiency iu scientific matters; in consequence of which he has probably confounded the blood-sucking Zimb of the family of the Tabanidn, with some other '^ hot," producing flies of the (Estrid» &mily. While on this subject we may observe that if any reliance could be placed in the dual number assigned to the word ''wings" by the vowel-points, it would be a remarkable confirmation of our view, ranee the Zimb or Tsetse is a member of the order Diptera.

The following account of the Tsetse of the interior of the

' Bruce, i., 388—390, and v., 188—192.

/ But if the Zimb of Bnice be confined to these limits, it will be asked, how can it be the Tuiltzal or TselAtsal of Palestine? This confessedly is a great diffioolty ; and the only exnlanation we can suggest is this : that it is not, and never was, naturally an innabitant of Palestine ; but that the Israelites are (in the passage above quoted from Deuteronomy) threatened with it as a roiracnlous visitation. Perhaps the;yr had seen its fatal effects in Egypt, where it may have been one of the flies (^bub»*Zimb in the Hebrew) which formed one* of the plagues. And iu this connexion, it is worthy of remark that the plague of flies precedes the murrain. May it not then have been the necessary consequence of the httes of the Tsetse?

1863.] A New Translaiion qf Isaiah XTiii. 287

south of Africa is extracted from an account of " Oswell and liiyingstone's Explorations into Central Africa/' contained in the Journal of the Royal Creographical Society for 1852^ vol. xxii.y p. 164^ etc.

''Having come at length upon a rbinooeros trail, we allowed the cattle, which were nearly worn out by the deep dry aande through which we had passed, to mn along it until their instinct led them to the water ; unfortunately, however, at a part of the Mababi infested by the 'Tsetse fly' (p. 172). .... The bite of the Tsetse (fly) is fatal to nesrly all domestic animals; yet when allowed to settle on the hand, all it is ohserved to do is to insert its proboscis a little further in than seems neoesssry to reach the blood ; it then withdraws it a little, the proboscis assumes a crimson colour, the mandibles appear in operation, the shrunken body swells, and in a few seconds the animal becomes quite full and quietly leaves. Its size is almost that of the common blue-fly, which settles on meat, but the wings are longer. In the ox the following ^mptoms are produced by the bite of the insect. The eye runs, the ghmds under the jaw swell, the coat loses its gloss, there is a peculiar flaccidity of the muscles generally, and emaciation commences, which proceeds unchecked until, perhaps months after the bite, purging super- venes, and the animal perishes of extreme exhaustion. Some die soon after the bite is inflicted, especially if they are in good condition, or should rain fall ; but in general the process of emaciaUon goes on for months. I had a horse wMch perished Ave months after being exposed to the insect. When the animal is destroyed in consequence of not being able to rise, the following appearances may be observed. The cellular tissue under the skin is injected with air, and the surface of the body presents the appearance of a number of soap-bubbles strewed over the carcase. The fat is of a greenish-yellow colour, and of oily consistence. The muscles are flabby, and the heart frequently pale and softened. The lungs have diseased patches on their surface of a pink or grey colour. The liver is frequently diseased, and the gall-bladder always distended with bile. The stomach presents no particular appearanee; but the small intestines are pale, and generally empty. The blood is remarkably small in quantity, and so devoid of colouring matter, that it scarcely stains the hands. The poison seems to be of the nature of a ferment, capable of propagating itself, and acts chiefly on the braii^ heart, lungs, and liver. The brain seemed affected in several by the circulation of the morbid fluid; for the animal became unsteady in its gait, and sometimes even blind. The Tsetse is fatal only to domestic animals, as the wild feed in parts infested by it quite undisturbed. There are large tribes, which cannot keep either cattle or sheep because the Tsetse abounds in their country ; yet it bites man and no danger follows. Our children lived for two months among the Tsetse, and were frequently bitten, but suffered no harm; while we lost most of our best oxen, after having been in contact with the fly on only one or two occasions. We have seen zebras, buffialoes, and antelopes, feeding undisturbed in the vicinity of our waggons on the Chobe, quite unmolested by the Tsetse which buzzed

288 A New TramMlaiiam of Isaiah XYiii. [Aprils

aroood ibem. Oxen and boffiJoes, lioraea and sebras, antelopes and goats, jackals and dogs» possess somewhat of the same nature. What is there in domestication, which renders domestic animals obnoxious to the poison? Is man not as mnch a domestic animal as a dog? Is it the Tsetse at all which kills the animals? Captain Yardan of the Indian army decided tlus point, for he rode a horse np to a hill infested by Tsetse, and in ten days his doubts were removed by the death of his horse. A cnrions featore in the case is, that dogs though reared on milk die if bitten, while cahres are safe so long as they snck the cow. A dog reared on the meat of game may be hunted in Tsetse districts in safety. The Tsetse only inhabits particular localities, well-known to the natives. Is there any antiseptic in the fluids of game and man which does not exist in the fluids of tame animals, or in those of dogs reared on milk ?"

The foUowing^ from Diodoros Sicalns^ iii., 22^ given also in an abridged form by Strabo^ 16, may possibly have originated in some perverted account of the Tsetse.

" In Ethiopia above Egypt, aloug the banks of the river called Asa (Strabo says Astaboras, i.e.y Atbara or Tacarre, and Astaphas, t.^., Bahr- al-Azreq), lives the tribe of the root-eaters .... who are much annoyed

by lions And doubtless the tribe would be utterly destroyed had

not nature contrived for them a self-acting remedy. For about the [heliacal] rising of the dog star, unexpectedly, there previously not having been a single fly in the place, so great a multitude of mosquitoes [Kwvtomv) collects, of a far worse sort than any known elsewhere, that the natives only escape by taking refuge in the marshes; and all the lions* fly the countrv, at once sorely damaged by their bites, and terrified by their noise.' *

Yer. 2. That sendethJ] — ^With one exception all critics and translators have taken the word r6on for the participle kal^ with the definite article prefixed ; in which state it became practically a noun = the sender^ he or it that sendeth. If so^ it must here mean the land that sendeth: but to this there is an objection in the masculine gender of the supposed participle ; fw^ the land^ being feminine. We are willing to grant that this is not an in- superable difficulty^ such irregularities being not without parallel: see Michaelis De Solwcismo, 28. Hensler alone ventures to difier from all other critics^ and takes the word for the Prset. Hophal^ pointing it vhtj/n, which he unjustifiably translates Man sendet= people send. We take it for the imperative Hiphil n^^ properly cause thou to send ; but which^ in all the passages where it occurs (Exod. viii. 21; Lev. xxvi. 22; 2 Kings xv. 37; Ezek. xiv. 13; Amos viii. 11)^ has the simple sense of sending. We accordingly translate it by send thou, taking the words to

* Dr. LiviDff stone gives an excellent account of the Tsetse in his travels, pp. 80—88 ; and a figure of the insect at p. 571.

1863.] A New TVanslaiion of Isaiah xviii. 289

be addressed by Jehovah to the prophet : our reasons will appear more clearly when we come to the clause, Go ye swift messengers.

AmbaasadorsJ] — The LXX. have 6fi'rfpa=jledges given in the place of hostages: all others, both ancient and modern^ ambassadors or messengers; with the exception of Bochart, who takes crw for images as in Isaiah xlv. 16. He builds upon this a connexion with the rites of Adonis^ as described by Herodotus. But our concern is with Cush, and not with Egypt : and Cush can by no means be the land that sends images by sea.

By the sea.] — Taking into consideration the already esta- blished reference to Ethiopia, and the papyrus boats of the fol- lowing clause, — which of course could not navigate either the Red Sea or the Mediterranean, — little doubt can remain that the name sea is here used to describe the Nile. Nor is this a solitary instance, for we find the Nile so denominated in chap, xix. 5, and again in xxvii. 1. And to this day it is styled by the Arabs, Bahr-Nil=the Nile Sea; as its two branches, the Bahr- al-Abiad= White Sea, and the Bahr.al-Azreq=Blue Sea, are even called by ourselves.

Even in vessels of bulrushes upon the watersJ] — Here there is an almost general agreement among interpreters, that boats formed of the papyrus or some similar rush, and coated with pitch like the ark of the infant Moses, are intended. The only apparent varietv of translation is that of the LXX., who have KOI eirurroXa^ pifiluva^ eirawo tov vBa7o<:, It is probable, how- ever, as Schultens (Opusc.) suggests, that this is a corruption of €7ri oToXoi^ l3cl3}uvoi^, or even of otoXcu^ i3ifi\ivac<;, if the pos- sibility be granted that they may have used (ttoXtj for o-toXo?, as jEschylus is thought to have done in Persae 1018. This would mean in fleets of papyrus; e7rt<rroXa9= letters, is incapable of explanation from the Hebrew, even by Bochart^s ingenuity.

The words then thus far are the speech of Jehovah, addressed first to the Ethiopians (ver. 1) and then (ver. 2 init.) to the prophet. Or if, as we prefer, the first words be translated, Alas for the land, etc., the whole may be looked upon as addressed to the prophet.

Go, ye swift messengers,'] An ellipse of the word " saying " is admitted or implied by most translators. The consequence of this is, that when rhtcn is talcen for a participle = that sends, the message becomes that of the land of Cush to some other nation. The extreme improbability of this has not been sufficiently attended to by the commentators. Those indeed who take the land in question to be Egypt, feel the difficulty less acutely ; but we have shewn that reference to be erroneous. When, however, we translate rhtcn by send thou, the message becomes that of

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. VI. U

290 A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. [^^uly,

Jehovah conveyed throagh the prophet to the Ethiopians. Horsley seems to have been strnck by the improbability above noticed, and by cancelling the word '^ saying " makes the words to be those of God : but^ so long as that sense is retained there can be no connexion between the present and the preceding clause, without the help of some such word as saying. Our version ^* send thou " gives a connected sense to the whole ; and will, we trust, commend itself to the judgment of our readers.

To a nation scattered and peel^dJ] — If our view of the meaning of the preceding passages be correct, this and the fol- lowing clauses contain a description of the Ethiopians; which otherwise they could hardly do. Nevertheless most commentators seem to take it for granted that either the Egyptians or Ethiopians are intended, without enquiring too curiously what the message is^ or who sends it. Horsley, after Jerome, imagines the nation to be the Jews : while Junius supposes the message sent to the Assyrians themselves: and Koppe, with Michaelis (supp., 2170), makes it the message of the Ethiopians to tribes in the interior of Africa ; ingeniously finding the people of Kuku in the V9 of the present passage.

To determine the precise meaning of the terms employed in this description is well-nigh impossible. The conjectural versions are almost endless : and the matter is rendered still more intricate by our not being even at liberty to reject those which proceed on the supposition that Egyptian peculiarities are alluded to in some of the terms employed. For, Egypt at this time forming a part of the dominions of Tirhakah, it may be argued that a portion of the description may apply to it. Under these cir- cumstances, and having nothing new to offer, we prefer to abide by the version of the English Bible, which gives an interpreta- tion at least as good as any that has been offered ; and which substantially agrees with the Chaldee.

Whose land the rivers have spoiled.'] — Here at length, after the labyrinth of difficulties presented by the preceding parts of the prophecy, we obtain a most important clue to the interpreta- tion of the whole. Some of the translators (for example, the Chaldee and Munster) have seen that the word crvia = rivers, is to be taken figuratively for great military powers ; and Jerome even indicates the Assyrians in particular. He is doubtless right ; though neither he nor the rest appear to be aware that it could not possibly mean any other power than one situated on the great rivers of Mesopotamia. The word -^0= river, with its dual, and its plural both masculine and feminine, is always, we believe, when thus figuratively used, restricted to the Meso- potamian powers, whether centred at Nineveh or Babylon. As

1863.] A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. 291

this view is one which has escaped the notice of commentators^ ve shall be pardoned if we dwell a little upon it, and adduce a few instances in which much light is thrown upon difficult pas- sages by attention to this poetic idiom.

The key passage is Isaiah viii. 7, where the prophet distinctly explains that by the waters of the river, the strong and the many, he means the king of Assyria and all his glory. With this key then in hand, we find that the river over which Jehovah will shake his hand is the Euphrates; as the tongue of the Egyptian Sea is the Nile, and not, as most people suppose, the Bed Sea : so that in this passage (Isaiah xi. 15) a humbling of both the Egyptian and Mesopotamian powers is foretold. So again Isaiah xxxiii. 21 contains a declaration that Jerusalem shall be safer under Jehovah's protection, than it would be under that of either Egypt (symbolized by DnM»=Niles, i.e., Nile with its canals and branches) or Assyria (typified by cnro= rivers, i.e,, Tigris, Euphrates, etc.). On the same principle we may explain Isaiah lix. 19 : — when the enemy shall come in like the river, to mean like the Assyrians under Sennacherib. And there is probably a similar allusion in several other passages of the same prophet. Such a view of the meaning of the word river would assuredly add force and elegance to Isaiah xlii. 15 ; xliii. 2; xlviii. 18; 1.2; Ixvi. 12.

So again Psalm xxiv. 2 describes the glory of Israel as ex- ceeding that of the western powers (cr = the sea), i.e., Egypt, etc. ; as well as the eastern (nnn3= the rivers), i. e., Assyria, etc. We would translate Psalm xlvi. 4 thus : As for the river, i. e., the Assyrians and Sennacherib, its conduit-streams, i, e,, the spoils they leave behind them in their disastrous retreat, shall gladden the city of God : — a simple explanation of a passage which has much puzzled the commentators. Psalm Ixxiv. 15 ; xciii. 3 ; and cvii. 33, present, in all probability, similar allu- sions. In Job xxviii. 11 we have a beautiful example of this custom of suggesting the ideas of Egypt and Mesopotamia by this mention of their respective rivers : —

He cutteth out rivers (DnNf»=Niles) among the rocks.

And his eye seeth every precious thing ; He restraineth the floods (nTTn= Euphrates, etc.) from leaking. And the hidden thing bringeth he forth to light.

That is, in Egypt man raises valuable crops even from rocks by carrying among them canals from the Nile : while in Meso- potamia he drains lands buried under the inundations, and con- fines the Euphrates and Tigris to their channels by embank- ments.

Many other more or less probable examples of this phraseology

u 2

292 A New Tran»lation of Isaiah xviii. [July,

might be addaced. One of them is in Hab. lii., but the whole of that highly poetical chapter is involved in so many obscari- ties that it will be useless to cite it as an instance here. We hope hereafter to present a clear account of the whole of it to onr readers.

To return then to onr present text, it would appear that it contains no reference to the fertilization of Egypt by moderate inundations, as Lowth and others suppose ; nor to its devasta- tion by excessive floods, as most critics have understood it. It is simply a statement that the dominions of the power addressed, f. tf., as we have seen, of Tirhakah, king of Nubia and Egypt, had been wasted by an invasion of the Assyrians, symbolized as a flood of the Mesopotamian rivers. As this marked significance of the word would be entirely lost by translating the word by rivers, and would not be very apparent even if we wrote the two rivers, — which latter would, we believe, be what the prophet really intended, — we propose to adopt the well-known Egyptian form of the original word, and to write it as a proper name Naharaina.

Ver. 3. All ye inhabitants of the world.'] — ^The prophet, or, which is much the same thing, the messengers dispatched by him to Tirhakah, here call on the whole world to listen to his announcement of the speedy destruction of Sennacherib's army, giving them certain data as to the place and time when it should be brought about. Most of the interpreters, who have not bewildered themselves with mystical references, agree in this, differing only in attributing the message to various sources. Some (Junius, Piscator, etc.) assign the words to Jehovau; others (Calvin, etc.), to the prophet. Others go wide : D'Orville, with Koppe and Miehaelis, make them the address of the Ethio- pians to the inhabitants of Inner Africa ; Jerome, of the Egyp- tians to the Jews ; and Eusebius, of the Jews to the Ethiopians ; which last seems nearest to the truth.

When he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains, 1 — The person here spoken of is doubtless Sennacherib. Jerome, however, interprets it of Jehovah, or of the prophet, as does Junius, but we cannot think so. The meaning seems to be, that so soon as Sennacherib, having conquered the Shephetah or Low- lands of Judaea, should proceed to attack the Har or Highlands, something noticeable would happen : and this accords with the resiilt ; for Lachish and Libnah, the last Jewish towns that he besieged, were both in the Shephelah, and nothing but the ap- proach of Tirhakah prevented his invading the Har.

Ver. 4. For thus said Jehovah to me.] — As this and the line or two next following are read and divided in the existing He-

1863.] A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. 293

brew text, there is no trace of poetical structure. We at first were disposed to conjecture that some word corresponding to, in my dwelling.place, had dropped out of the preceding clause, and that the whole should be read, —

For thus Jehovah spake to me : —

" [In highest heaven] will I take my rest,

And consider in my own habitation." But if so, the words must have been lost previous to the most ancient translation we possess. Fortunately a comparison of the Chaldee Version with the Keri-Cethib readings enables us to clear up the matter in a much more satisfactory way. The text reads nenptJH, which is clearly a blunder; the Keri would correct it by cancelling the i; but the Chaldee by its rP3M shews that the true reading is ncv^? - the present hiphil. Of this (see Job xxxiv. 29) the construction is, Quietem concessit alicui ab aliquo. We therefore separate ^^ from the first, and attach it to the second clause, reading —

For thus spake Jehovah : —

" To myself will I give rest ;

And meditate in my own habitation." Like a clear heat upon herbs.'] — This translation rests upon two conjectures : the one that nw is equivalent to rmw, which is quite destitute of proof, and unsupported by the ancient ver- sions ; the other that the latter word signifies herbs, which is anything but certain. Even were it better founded, the render- ing is barely intelligible, and exceedingly tame, though Vitriuga, Doederlein, and others, who accept it, try to make the best of it. D'Orvyie and Rosenmiiller, following the LXX., Chaldee, and Jerome, take iih in its natural sense of light, or its poetical one, the sun, but fail to give any satisfactory account of the preposition "hs. The LXX. and Jerome seem to have taken this for a substantive = exaltations, from which they have extracted the notion of the midday sun, as if at the exaltations of the sun. It would be difficult to justify this by the production of any similar phraseology. But even allowing this rendering, whatever resemblance Jehovah at rest may bear to the midday sun, we are utterly unable to understand how he can be com- pared to a dewy mist.

Moved by the consideration of these difficulties, we had formed a conjecture, which we were afterwards delighted to find confirmed by the Syriac Version. This is, that instead oi -m'hs we should divide the words -tin* ^= upon the Nile; and as we cannot discover the force of the supposed comparison, we pro- pose to take 3 as an adverb of time ; thus we shall obtain the foUowing clear and simple rendering : —

294 A New Traiulaivm of Isaiah xviii. [July?

** When the heat is clear upon the Nile, And dewy the mist in the day of harvest/'

The difficulty still remains to be explained by any known peculiarity of the climate of either Palestine, £g7Pt> or Nubia, the dewy mist in the day of harvest; and this difficulty is equally great whether we adopt the translation given above, or adhere to the Authorized Version. We are of opinion that in this verse there is no figure, but that the real harvest of Egypt or Nubia is intended. Some commentators seem to think that Tsp here means the vintage. We doubt whether this can be justified : they seem to have adopted the notion from the follow- ing verse, which is by no means conclusive. The harvest there may be, not the vintage, but the genuine wheat or barley harvest ; or it may be wholly figurative. Forskal' tells us of the dews of Egypt: "Of no less advantage'* than the rains, Nile-flood, and artificial irrigation, " are the dewy mists fnebuliB rori/eraj, precisely Isaiah's ^ 3r, which are so dense about Cairo at the end of January as not to disperse before ten o'clock, and leave the trees and herbs as wet as after rain." Whether these continue in the following month, which would almost bring us to barley-harvest, we cannot discover. Such, however, would appear to have been the case in the land of 'Uz, since Job (xxix. 19) says, ''The dew Vd lay all night upon my harvest t*sp;" where it is true our version and many critics take the last word to mean branch ; though the LXX. and Vulgate agree in trans- lating it by harvest.

On the whole it appears to us that the meaning intended to be conveyed is, that Jehovah would have finished his work in the destruction of Sennacherib's army before the Egyptian summer, — nay, even before the Egyptian harvest.

Ver. 5. For afore the harvest,^ — As noticed above, some translators, — Dathe and Doederlein, for example, — take this for the vintage, but without proof. The grapes being ripe in Egypt in July, one would suppose that the flowering season was in May. If then we are to understand literally the following ex- pression concerning the state of the grapes, the time indicated will be the middle of June. This, however, is irreconcilable with the literal understanding of the harvest, for that is over before June. And accordingly we feel inclined to a figurative interpretation of the whole of the expressions concerning the state of the vintage. This we must at least do with respect to the pruning of the vines, imderstanding by the immaturity of the grapes the incompleteness of Sennacherib's projects. This

' Flora Ardbica, xlii.

1863.] A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. 295

idea has been familiarized to us by Shakespear in the well-known passage (Henry VIII., act iii., scene 2) : —

" To-day he puts forth The tender leaves of hope, to-morrow blossoms, And bears his blushing honours thick upon him ; The third day comes a frost, a killing frost ; And when he thinks, — good easy man, — full surely His greatness is a ripening, nips his root. And then he falls as I do."

Ver. 6. They shall be left together for the fowls of the moun- tains,']— The LXX. translators evidently found the word cm "of the mountains " repeated after ^w " the fowls/' in both places of this verse ; and its addition in the second place commends itself to the ear, so that we have no doubt of its genuineness. It is to be observed, however, that by a blunder, or the conceit of some pseudo-critical transcriber, rrjq op€ivr)<; of the hill-country has been converted into tov ovpavov of the heaven ; and this cor- ruption, it would seem from the Syriac hexaplar version, took place before the revision of Origen, who let it stand, merely marking with the obelisk the second occurrence of tov ovpavov. The very same corruption has taken place in Psalm xlix. 12. Bosenmiiller adduces some arguments not to be despised, in order to shew that the words yip and rpn should be taken in very

different senses from those which the English Version, following the Chaldee and Jerome, has given. His version may be thus represented : —

And the fowls . . . shall turn sick at the sight of them ;

Aaid all beasts of the earth turn from them with loathing. It certainly gives us a very forcible idea of the immensity of the slaughter, that all the beasts and birds of prey should thus gorge themselves to disgust upon the carcases. But to our minds the same idea of enormous destruction is conveyed by the statement that the carcases should feed all the vultures, dogs, and jackals of the neighbourhood for the next six months. We therefore prefer, even if the balance of the ancient versions is slightly against us, to adhere to the received exposition. Per- haps, however, fp is rather messem agere than sestivare, and rpn auctumnum agere than hiemare. And as the destruction was to take place before the harvest, so now it is added that

The fowls of the mountains shall on them spend harvest.

And all beasts of the earth pass the autumn upon them. Ver. 7. At that time shall a gift be brought.] — The com- mentators are here divided in opinion as to whether the word d», *' a people,^' is in apposition with the gift here mentioned, or

296 A New Translation of Isaiah xviii. l^^Ys

whether the preposition d ^'from'^ is to be supplied from dvo "of or "from a people ^^ in the following line. But the latter supposes a harsh ellipse; and the former hardly makes sense. We therefore take d in • the common sense of " some of/ " a portion of,'^ etc., and translate : —

At that time shall be brought a gift Unto Jehovah, the Lord of hosts ; A gift of a j)eople scattered and peeled. Even some of a people terrible once and still.

W. H. C.

AlahaHer, — This word oocurs in Matt. xrvi. 7 j Mark ziv. 3, and Luke ^ii. 87. In each case it is translated '* alabaster box -" the consequence of which has been that the true character of the object has b^n very much overlooked. The ancient versions avoid this ambiguity, and either call the vessel " an alabaster," or " a vase," either of which is more correct than " alabaster box." Many of these vessels have been found not only in Egypt and Assyria, but in Greek and Boman ruins. In his catalogue of the Hartwell Museum, Mr. Bonomi figures some of these, and among them one on which he has the following interesting note : — *' This form of vase is the most usual in which costly scented ointment was exported from Egypt. It was made at Alabastrou, on the Nile, and from the town the material received its name, and the vase was called ' an Alabastron.' This word in the authorized version of the New Testament is translated *an alabaster box,' but it might be more correctly translated ' an alabaster jar/ As the scent it contained was of very great price, the vase was never meant to be opened, but was to give out its fragrance through the sides of the porous jar. Hence, no doubt, arose the choice of this particular stone to inclose it ; and henco the bkune thrown upon the woman who, m her pious zeal for the Saviour, broke it for immediate use, and consumed in a moment scent which might have lasted for years. Vases of the same material, and of this particular form, are found in the tombs of Greece and Etruria, and were made in Egypt, no other quarries of that stone being then known." We have engraved some examples of Egyptian vases from the collection in the British Museum. Some of these vases were so formed as to reauire stands, which were frequently of a simple tripod form. The same material nas since been found in Spain, whence mineralogists have given to it the name of Aragonite. A perfect alabaster vase, bearing the name and title of the queen of Thothmes II., which " still contains some broini matter which gives out an unctuous smell," is in the collection of the Duke of North- umberland, at Alnwick Castle. Two vases, one glass, and one alabaster, found at Nimroud, aro figured in Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Ba^Um, p. 197. They bear the name of Sargon [Isaiah xx. 1], and, says Mr. Layard, "were pro- bably used for holding some ointment or cosmetic." On some vases was in- scribed the number of bins they contained. If it were necessary, it would be easv to quote passages, both from Latin and Greek classic authors, to shew that '* alabastron," or " alabaster," was the name of the vessel, even when it was formed of gold, or of other materials. The narrow neck of the *' alabastron" in the hands of Mary was stopped or sealed, and when it is said she brake the box, we are to understond that she broke it open, by removing the stopper and the seal ; she would, at most, only break off the narrow neck, and in this state the alabastra are in fact often met with. The oldest and beet of all the ancient versions, the Syriac Peshito, says, in Mark xiv. 8, that the woman had a flask or phial, which she opened, and then poured the precious contents upon the Be- deemer's head. — CaeeelVi Bible Dictionary,

1863.] ( 397 )

A SEBMOK : BY THE BEV. GILBEBT WHITE OF SELBOBNE.

[The Rev. Gilbert White has left a name and memory which are still cherished with affectionate regard by the multitudes who have read the Natural History of Selborne. This is not the place to comment upon the work alluded to^ nor to attempt a sketch of its author's character as an indefatigable and accurate observer of nature; but we may say that White's Natural History of Selborne is one of the few books of its class which can be read, understood, and admired, by thousands who are not familiar with the arcana of science, and who would be repulsed by dry technical details. We naturally wish to know all we can of men whose writings have endeared them to us; and as Gilbert White was a clergyman, we may well be curious to know what and how he preached. Very little seems to be known of his pulpit exercises, though we may believe his ministrations were adapted to the edification of his flock. Most of his life was spent at Selborne, the place of his nativity, but only one of his sermons appears to have been preserved. Till now that single sermon has been unprinted. Mr. White's grand nephew, F. Gilbert White, Esq., has the original, and to his courtesy we owe the careful copy from which we have printed it. We have scrupulously retained the author's spelling and punc- tuation. Our readers will accept the sermon as a pleasing memorial of a great and good man. Its author, who was born in 1720, wrote this sermon in 1748, and preached it for the last time in 1792, only eight months before his death. We are quite sure that many who have learned to love and honour the name of Gilbert White, will be pleased to meet with him in his clerical character. The transcriber has sent to a friend^ through whom we have received the copy, an interesting letter, from which we will quote only the following remarks : '' A.s to its substance, I need say nothing; it speaks for itself: only it is interesting as shewing that at all events it was not every clergy- man in the middle of the last century, who preached ^a dry morality from which every distinctively Christian element was struck out for the sake of a barren philosophy.' This is certainly the popular view of the preaching of a hundred years ago ; and this sermon, at all events, tells its own tale the other way. It is curious to see how the character which he draws of a true Christian takes in just those marks which seem to have dis- tinguished his own character: in both there is more of the passive than the active virtues, more aim at innocence than at heroism. This is the more to be noticed because the sermon

298 A Sermon by the Rev. Gilbert fVhUe. [July,

was written in 1748, when he was only twenty-eight, quite a young man ; and perhaps not long in orders : so that as far as this evidence goes, he seems to have been much the same man all through Hfe."]

IffT. Epistle of St. John 4. 20.

" He that says, he loves God, bat hateth his Brother, is a Lyar : for if he loves not his Brother, whom he bath seen ; bow can be love God, whom be hath not seen ?"

The text consists of two parts; 1st, an Assertion; He that says, he loves God, & hateth his Brother, is a Lyar: & 2ndly, the Reason of that Assertion; For if he loves not his Brother, whom he hath seen ; how can he love God, whom he hath not seen? Where the Interrogative is equal to a Negative; & is the same as if Hwere said, For he that loveth not his Brother, whom he hath seen, cannot love God, whom he hath not seen.

Which Assertion may to some perhaps seem untrue, & the reason, by which the Apostle here establishes it, insufficient; it being much easier, as they may thiuk, to love God without seeing him, than their Brother whom they daily see. Because tho' God doth not exhibit himself to human View; yet his Wisdom, Power, & Goodness, are so visible in his Works, as to allure any one, that duly considers them, to the Love of so excellent a Being. But on the contrary human Nature is so depraved, & wicked, as appears by the general practices of Men, which are mostly vitious ; that barely to know it, is to be under a kind of Necessity of hating it, unless we will love that which is continually evil. And therefore why may we not, say they, love God, whom we have not seen, better than our Brother, whom we have seen ; since for the most part, what we do, or can see in him, is more likely to discourage than invite our Love.

Bat how specious soever this arguing may appear, yet un- doubtedly the Assertion in the Text must be true; it being the Dictate of the Spirit, which cannot deceive, not be deceived. And of this we shall be convinced, if we duly weigh the meaning of the words, & the reasons whereby they may be made out.

And first of all the common Excuse for not loving Men urged by those, who would be thought to love God, is wholly taken away by a right Understanding of the Word Brot/ier in this place. Whereby is meant a Brother in the Faith ; one who by the Divine Word is transformed into the Image of Xst, and walks no longer after the Fle£, but after the Spirit ; ever exercising himself as St. Paul did, to keep a Conscience void of offence, towards God, and towards men, by the Practice of all the Virtues. Now as against such an one, there is no Law, so

1863.] A Sermon by the Rev. Gilbert White. 299

neither, withoat the grossest Injustice, can there be any Hatred or Ill-will. For the proper return to virtue and Oood- works is Honour, & Love; this is their Due, and which ought to be rendered to them by all people, where ever they are found ; & therefore ^tis great Iniquity to repay them in any other Sort.

And who then can hate his Brother? such an amiable, & engaging person, who hath all the Charms of Sobriety, Righte- ousness, and Holiness : who lives like an Angel, or Son of God, here on Earth, having his Conversation all the while in Heaven, where by the Eye of Faith he continually beholds the great Judge of the World, & in regard to him, & for his Sake, doth every thing as if He was still present with him ; never willingly entertaining so much as a thought or uttering a word, or ven- turing upon any action whereby he doth not hope to please him. Who moreover studies to be helpful to all Mankind, to the utmost of his power, & also beyond it, pitying, & succouring even them by his prayers, 8z; good wishes, whom his alms & Estate will not reach : & who is so tender of injuring any person, that he had much rather take, than do wrong ; & in all Cases, after the Example of his Blessed Lord, strives to over- come evil with good. This is the Brother meant by the Apostle in the Text ; viz : a true one, who is regenerated after the Image of God in Ilighteousness, & true Holiness. And who can lay any thing to the Charge of such an one ; who can condemn him, or find any occasion to be at variance with him : nay how can any one chuse but love & cherish him ? Which shews that there is no extraordinary DiflBculty in loving our Brother, in the 1st Sense of that Word, as taken for a good man, & a good Xtian; & that nothing more is needful thereto, than to keep our Hearts free from Envy, & Covetuousness, & Pride, & the like destructive Sins, which are apt to banish all true love out of the Soul. But 21y this is not all that the Text requires of us; but moreover as the Word Brother may be & often is taken in a larger Sense, viz: for every Descendant from our first parent Adam; it calls us to higher & nobler Exertions of our Love, namely to communicate it to those who much less deserve it, as for Instance to the Evil & unjust, & even our Enemies, Haters, & Persecutors, who, notwithstanding all these ill Qualities, are still our Brethren, Partakers of the same Flesh & Blood, & of the same humane Nature, &; Divine Extraction, & equally the Children of God, & of the promise of being blessed in his Son, who tasted Death no less for them, than for us. And in this large Sense we are commanded by the Law of God to love our Brethren as ourselves; & none of these things, which some people are apt to urge as reasons why they cannot

800 A Sermon by the Rev. Gilbert White. [JvXj,

love their Brethren^ ever liinder ns from loving ourselves. We are of the same inconstant, impotent, corrupted Nature; as frail, & false, & vitious, as they ; & yet we still love ourselves, & why not then our Brethren too 7 And God knows these things of us, both of our Brethren, & ourselves, & of all Mankind^ that we are a vile, & sinM Generation, still prone to evil, & averse to Good. Yet did not this seem a sufficient reason to htniy why he should not embrace us all in the Arms of his Mercy, & pour out upon us the richest blessings of his Pity, & Love ; by which ^tis evident, that the Vices & Imperfections of men are no justifiable Ground for not loving them. Besides what is more common than for people to connive at the Faolts & Infirmities of those whom by nature, or upon carnal motives, they have a kindness for ; & to love them never the worse. As who almost are there, who do not know these things of their Children, & yet are in much more Danger of loving them too much, than too little? And is it not usual for men to bear with the ^11 Humours, & Vices of those from whom they have worldly Expectations, & a prospect of temporal Advantages? Which shows the possibility of putting the Duty of general Love in practice, not withstanding the forementioned objections of the Impracticability of it, upon the Score of the Immorality & Odiousness of the greatest part of mankipd. For if these things do not obstruct our love to ourselves & our Children, & to such, from whom we look for Advantages, when such persons have as great Infirmities, & Defects, & are guilty of as gross Faults as other of our Neighbours ; why should they stop the current of our affections to any one whatsoever ? Doth Relation to us alter the Case, & that Respect alone impart worth & amiableness to things, which otherwise have none : or is thero no such thing as virtue in the world, but all our actions are to be guided by Interest ? And if we can love worthless, & Sinful Objects, when influenced thereto by natural Propensity, Hopes of Gain, Humor or the like mean Incitements; surely 'tis but just, that God should require as much of us towards the whole Race of Mankind. And considering what great things God has already done for us, & what more & greater he assures us he tuill do, if we please him; certainly no motive whatsoever ought to be half so powerful to perswade us to the Exercise of this Affection in it's largest Extent, (if we will not by reason, & an eye to our supreme Good) as his commanding it, & enforcing it with the most pretious promises on the one side, & with the most dreadful threats, & terrors on the other.

21y. 'Twill appear plainly that they are Lyars who say they love God^ when they do not love their neighbours, because the

1868.] A Sermon by the Rev. Gilbert White. 801

love of our Neighbours is altogether as necessary & essential a part of true Religion, as the love of God. If any person loves God, his or her affection must arise from the Conscience of God^s being their Maker, & Governour, whom therefore they are bound to obey & serve in all things, which they know to be his will. Now 'tis certain that God no less commands us to love our Brethren, than himself; so that to be careful of our respects to him, & careless of those to men, is to be defective in one half of our Religion : & tho' we may think it such a part only, as God will not much regard, provided we be but duly observant of our Duty to him; 'tis certainly a very great Mistake. For our Saviour to remove this error (into which he saw people apt to run) hath expressly told us, that tho' to love God with all the heart, be the first & greatest Commandment ; yet that the second, Thou shalt Tove thy Neighbour, as thyself, is like unto it, (Math. xxii. 89) as necessary & obliging^ & no less insisted on by God, nor less perfective of Men. God hath joined these two together, & will not, upon any account whatever, permit them to he put asunder : to serve him in one of these Instances only, & not in the other also, is to no more purpose than if we failed in Both : because God will not accept the one without the other. He as expressly requires that we should do justly, & exercise love & mercy ; as walk humbly with him, in order to the pleas- ing him. (Mich. 6, 8.)

And the Apostle tells us, this Commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his Brother also. (1 Jo. 4, 21.) Unless our Brotherly Love keeps equal pace with our Devotion, or rather precedes it, to make a way, & open a Door of Accept- ance for it, all our acts of piety are but lost labour. For doth not our Lord send us from the very Altar of God, & bid us leave there our Gift, rather than proceed any further in offering it, if whilest we are about it, we call to mind that there remains any Difference, or Breach of Charity between us, & any other person ; & to go & first be reconciled to our Brother, & then (& not 'till then) to come thither again, & offer our Gift? (Math. 5, 23, 24.) Thereby declaring, that 'tis vain to present ourselves, or any of our Services to God, 'till we are in perfect Charity with all men; & that in our approaches to God, our Love to men, who are all our Brethren, is altogether as necessary to recommend us to him, as our Piety to himself.

And moreover Sly we prove ourselves Lyars, when we pretend to love God, & at the same time don't love our Brethren ; be- cause without loving them, we cannot give any sufficient proofs of our loving God. Forasmuch as the Love of men necessarily follows the true Love of God, as Man is God's declared Bepre-

802 A Sernum «y the Bev. Gilbert WhUe. [Jaly,

sentative, & Favourite, & that, which next to himself, he most recommends to onr Lotc. 'Tis the Nature of Love to extend itself to all things belonging to it's Beloved, & mostly to those, who are most near & dear to him; & such doubtless to every Parent are his Children, those that bear his Similitude, as all men do God's ; & therefore every one that loveth him must love them also. Don't the Apostle lay it down as a never-failing rule, that every one that loveth him who begat, loveth him also who is begotten of him? (1 Joh. 5, 1.) We have not, nor can have any surer way of expressing our Love, & endearing our- selves to God, than by an affectionate mind, & actions to his oflbpring, all mankind; to whom God has owned a peculiar Kindness, & most especial Regard.

And 4iy. They must needs be Lyars, who tho' they love not men, yet pretend to love God; because every true Lover of God, as he makes the words & commands of God, so doth he also his example, the Rule of his Actions, & sets himself to copy after it to the utmost of his power; that he may be as like him in mind, & manner as possible. We are bid (Ephes. 5, 1, 2) to be followers of God, as dear Children; & to walk in Love, as Xst also loved us, & gave himself for us. Thereby teaching us Ist that all truly loving, & obedient Children of God think it their Duty to imitate their Heavenly Father, in what they may ; & that to be transformed in their inward Affections & outward Deeds into his Divine Image is their chief Glory, & best proof of their being his Children : and 21y that the highest of all per- fections, even of the Divine, is an unlimited & universal Love ; & that therein principally & above all other Virtues, we are required to resemble God ; & as he has loved us, tho' no way deserving his Love, so we should love others, tho' imdeserving of our Love, & do as we have been done unto.

51y and lastly^ they are Lyars, who make a shew of loving God without loving their Brethren ; because the Love of Grod is an higher, & more difficult Duty, than the Love of Men; & therefore not attainable but by first practicing this, which is the way & preparative to that: According to the Apostle's words here, *tis easier loving our Brother, whom we have seen, than God we have not seen. For tho' God be in himself infinitely more lovely than Man, yet 'tis more natural & easy, that is, it lyes more in our way, & is more practicable for us in our present state to love men than God. And our Love to men must in some measure precede our Love to God, tho' afterwards that be confirmed & heightened & compleated by this. And tho' our Love to God be the first, & greatest Commandment in respect of the Dignity of the Object ; yet that which is said to be but

1863.] A Sermon by the Rev. GUberi White. 303

the second, & subordinate precept, namely our love to our Brethren, is first in the Order of things. Good-nature, & Pity, & those common respects, & Kindnesses, which we all find our- selves to stand in need of, from one another, must first have a place in our Hearts, before divine Charity, or the Love of the most High, (he whom no Mortal hath seen or ever shall see) can enter into them. For as the Apostle says, that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural \ & afterwards that which is spiritual. (1 Cor. 16.) If people will not follow Nature in her most urgent Affections, & importunate Ilequests, such as Love, Fellow-feeling, Compassion &c : how should they ever arrive at the higher attainments of Grace, & Spiritual Perfection ? For the ways & proceedings of God are regular, & gradual, risiug from one Degree of Accomplishment to an other : as His in the natural Growth of things. .We must first learn to be loving & compassionate to those of our own Species, those who are a Sort of second selves to us, before we can raise our Affections to supernatural & immaterial things, and love him who is exalted far above all. And if when the objects of Pity & Charity present themselves to us, we will not be moved with what we hear & see, & in somewhat the like Instances daily feel in our- selves; if our Affections are not to be wrought upon by the Testimony of our Senses, which are the most immediate, quickest & surest means of knowledge, we shall doubtless remain immov- able to all other motives whatsoever: if from our dayly Con- versation, & Experience in the World we are not convinced of the Necessity of Justice, Charity, & mutual good Offices among Men ; how should we ever be made Sensible of the Needfulness of the Love, & Worship, & Service of God : since those are the most plain & obvious part of our Duty; & no Nations have erred so much in their Notions of them, as these. Thus the Apostle Aays (1 Job. 3, 17) *' Whoso hath this world^s good, & seeth his Brother have need, & shutteth-up his Bowels of Com- passion from him, how dwelleth the Love of God in him "? If such close & pressing Motives, which come so home to every one of ttSj as that the name being changed, the Case is exactly our oton; if they cannot work in us tenderness & Commiseration, ^tis not at all credible, that God who dwells far above out of our sight, & whom we cannot approach unto, should ever come within our enquiry, or be any way regarded by us ; but on the contrary be as far out of our minds, & Affections, as he le out of our Sight.

Thus I hope I have cleared the Text, both the Assertion, & reason of it.

April 3rd, 1748 Nov. 18th, 1792.

( 804 ) [July,

EXEGESIS OF DIFFICTTLT PASSAGES. Matt. iv. 1 — 11. Luke iv, 1 — 18.

Question I. Was the tempter visible or invisible during the

temptation of our Lord?

Dean Alpord in the fourth edition of the first volume of his Greek Testament declines to give an opinion on the question, whether the temptation of our Lord was outward and the pre- sence of the tempter visible, or whether it was inward and con- fined to his own mind. He suggests, however, that the third and last temptation, according to the order of St. Matthew, or second, according to that of St. Luke, presents considerable dif- ficulty to those who consider the tempter to have been invisible. We had formerly the advantage of the instructions of the pre- sent Bishop of Manchester, and were much struck by some observations of his on this subject. He told the class, so far as our memory serves us^ that if the tempter had been visible, the temptation would not have been a temptation at all, and criti- cized rather severely Milton's representation of the evil one, as appearing in the form of an old man. Had our Lord known that he was at that precise moment being tempted by the devil, he or any man must have been on his guard at once, and have repelled in an instant the assault of the enemy. *' Surely/' said he^ '^the tempter must have been invisible to have suggested thoughts to Jesus, which he could not distinguish from the workings of his own mind, but which he combated as described in the text of Scripture.^' Moreover, it is not improbable that only the principle of the three temptations is given us, and that some at least of them were insinuated in a more covert manner, though exhibited to us in their naked deformity.

Let us go through the three temptations in order, according to the arrangement of St. Matthew, and see what difficulties they respectively present to the theories of the visibility or invisibility of the tempter j first remarking, that Jesus is not represented as having gone into the wilderness spontaneously, but as having been conducted thither by an irresistible spiritual influence. " Then was Jesus led up by the Spirit into the wil- derness to be tempted by the devil.'' Similar or stronger words are tfsed by St. Mark in his very brief allusion to the tempta- tion : ^' And immediately the spirit driveth him (eVySaXXct) into the wilderness." St. Luke uses very remarkable words, im- piyi^^g* as well as St. Mark that the temptation continued more or less during the whole forty days : " And Jesus returned full

1863.] Exegeris of DifficuU Passages. ' 805

of the Holy Spirit from the Jordan^ and was led (imperfect tense) up and down in the wilderness under the influence of the Spirit {iv r^ irvevfMaTt) forty days, being tempted (present tense of continued action) by the devil.'^

Now^ suppose that in this state of what we — hunHmly speak- ing— should call spiritual exaltation^ after a prolonged fast of forty days, an aged man should have accosted him, reminded him of the voice from heaven immediately after his baptism, and required of him a proof of that sonship which had thus been solemnly announced : '^ If thou art Son of God, bid that these stones become loaves ?" Could any plan of temptation more likely to put the person tempted on his guard be devised? What cunnings what subtlety would there be in such a ques- tion so asked ! On the other hand, if the devil, having received power over the mind and not over the body of our Lord, had suggested such a thought to his mind in such a manner as to be nndistinguishable from his own thoughts, how really dangerous and subtle a temptation would it have been ! Our Lord would have been led to say within himself: " I have been publicly greeted and acknowledged as the Son of God, and yet am now here suffering the pangs of hunger ; may I not use my Sonship in commanding God^s creatures to assume the shape and form in which they will be most useful to me?'' The reply is equally conclusive as against the temptation, whether the tempter be supposed visible or invisible : '^ It stands written, not on bread alone shall man live, but on every word proceeding forth through the mouth of God/'

The second temptation, to our mind, presents still greater difficulties to those who hold the visibility of the tempter, and to be most plain and easy of explanation to the maintainers of his invisibility. " Then the devil taketh him into the holy city, and places him upon the pinnacle of the temple, and says to him. If thou art Son of God, cast thyself down ; for it stands written : To his angels will he give charge concerning thee, and on their hands will they lift thee, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." To be carried bodily by the tempter to' Jerusalem, placed upon the highest point of the temple, and there called upon a second time for a proof of Sonship, would have been the very thing to put our Lord on his guard against the evil being who was addr&ssing him. But if we suppose that the devil had received power, not over the body, but over the mind of the Son of God, and that he was carried not in the body, but in the spirit or mentally to the pinnacle of the temple, that in fact he M'as compelled to imagine himself there, and make up his mind as to how he would act under the circum-

NEW SERIES. VOL. III., NO. VI. X

306 Exegesis of Difficult Passages, [July,

stances, then the temptation becomes one of a veiy subtle and dangerous nature. Parallel instances of mental change of place will be found in Bev. xvii. 3^ '' So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness, and I saw a woman/^ etc. Ber. xxi. 10, ^^ And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me the holy city Jerusalem, descend- ing out of heaven from God/^ 2 Cor. xii. 2, '^ I knew a man in Christ fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I know not ; or whether out of the body, I know not : Qod knoweth ;) such a one caught up as far as the third heaven,^^ etc. Had our Lord assented to the tempter in this case, the next step would have been for him to go in the body to the pinnacle of the temple, and actually take this means of declaring himself the Son of Ood, in faith that God would work a wonder to preserve him. But instead of this, he replies, that it is not allowable for a human being to expect God to alter or reverse the general laws of nature for a mere wish of his own. It stands written again : " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God/'

We now come to the temptation which Dean Alford con- siders to present the greatest difficulty to those^ who, like our- selves, suppose the tempter to have been invisible and the temptation to have been a purely mental one. '^ Again the devil taketh him up on to an exceedingly high mountain^ and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory ; and saith to him. All these things will I give thee, if thou fallest down and worshippest me. Then saith Jesus to him, Get away behind me, Satan : for it stands written. The Lord thy God shalt thou worship, and him only shalt thou serve.''

Now suppose for an instant the tempter to have been visible, and to have made his last effort and played his last card by attacking our Lord nakedly and without reserve with a tempta- tion such as this. The devil asks the person who has just been owned and acknowledged as the Son of God, without any more ado to fall down and worship him for a reward, which might be expected to fall into the hands of such a person without any such interference! Would it be possible to imagine such a person yielding to or being in any danger from such a tempta- tion ? Would it not be the most stupid and j^enseless course that a tempter could pursue, to endeavour to attain his object in such a manner ? Would he not be taking the very lest means of frustrating his own object ?

If, however, the tempter were invisible, and suggested to our Lord's own mind thoughts embodying in a very veiled and dis- guised form the principle which we find recorded in its naked deformity, the temptation might easily be one of a most subtle

1863.] Exegeris of Difficult Passages. 307

and dangeroas nature. Suppose the account we have to be a brief Bommary of an attempt made by the Ruler or god of this world to induce Christ's human nature to conform to the current views and prejudices of his countrymen^ by raising the standard of revolt against the Romans with the kingdoms of the Kocfiof; or olKov/jtevf), i.e., of Palestine^ as his base of operations. This would have been a virtual falling down and worshipping the ruler of the Jewish worlds whereas our Lord's grand protest was against the hypocritical^ selfish^ and arrogant system raised upon the basis of the law by the Scribes and Pharisees. Had he acted thus, had he appeared as the kind of Messiah which his countrymen expected^ he would have been a Barabbas or a Barchochebas, not a Jesus. His kingdom would have been of this worlds and his servants would have fought for his temporal power and temporal sovereignty. Thus the sin to which he was tempted would have been a violation of his moral sense or con- science^ a doing evil that good might come^ and a degrading himself to become the servant of the current prejudices of the people, and thus a falling down and worshipping their father the devil (John viii. 44) instead of his Father Gon Almighty.

It is immaterial in the case of this third temptation, whether we suppose our Lord to have actually ascended a high mountain, whence a view was obtained over the several kingdoms or pro- vinces of Palestine, or whether we suppose him to have done so in imagination only, as illustrated by the passages quoted above. In either case the temptation presented to his mind's eye was one which was decisive as to whether he were a true or false Christ, no longer involving the question, " If thou art the Son of God,'^ but taking it for granted that he was the Son of God, and suggesting a wrong way of entering upon his mission as such.

Question II. How far were the divine and human natures of our Lord in communication with each other during the

temptation ?

Another important question is involved here, and that is how far the divine and human natures of our Lord were in commu- nication with each other during the temptation ? Assuming it as fully proved to stand revealed, that he was perfect God and perfect Man ; the question of the amount of intercourse between his two natures has remained, we believe, unconsidered up to the present day. Confining ourselves first of all to the narrative of the temptation itself, we find a difficulty in believing it to have been a real and bond fide temptation at all, and are strongly led to suppose it to have been a temptation merely in show or

X 2

308 Exegesis of Difficult Passages. [ July^

semblaDce^ ro Boxetv, upon the theory that our Lord's two natures were in full and constant communion and communica- tion with each other, so that he was subject to surprise and sorrow as man, while he worked his miracles of his own power unaided as God. Hence many have supposed that the devil believed himself to have been tempting a mere man, whereas he was really tempting a divine person, and thus all his subtleties were unavailing against the omniscient Being, with whom he had unwittingly entered into conflict. But thus the temptation appears to have been no temptation at all, but merely the sem- blance of one, and resolves itself into a kind of deceit practised upon the archdeceiver. And those who hold this view appear to fall under the denunciation of Ignatius as partakers of the heresy of the Docetse, who^ '' being themselves a semblance/' ainrol to Sok€lv 8vt€^, maintained that our Lord suffered, to SoKelp, in semblance. Just write weirei^aadoA " was tempted," for irenrovOhfOA " suffered,'' and we have an exact description of this school from the pen of Ignatius."* But surely the tempta- tion was a real and momentous matter, in which the whole human race in the person of the Saviour was on its trial, and was victorious in that trial, just as it had been on its trial in the person of Adam — whatever be our explanation of the circum- stances related, whether as facts or symbols, which is immaterial to our present argument, in the beginning of Genesis — and had grievously failed when there was but a single opportunity of failing.

It has always seemed to us that the character of the tempta- tion consisted in this : (1) that the divine and human natures of our Lord were not in communication ; (2) that the mystery of his earthly existence was, that he was not only perfect man, but mere man and very God at one and the same time ; and (3) that the attempt of the evil spirit was to induce his human nature to take some step or other, which would place it in an attitude of opposition, if not of absolute antagonism to his divine nature, whereby the grand scheme of redemption would have been frus- trated at the outset. Let us proceed to see what bearing pas- sages from other portions of Scripture have upon this theory, which is undoubtedly />r£m4/ad^ just as applicable to the events of the temptation as the ordinary one.

It is evident from Scripture that our Lord was subject to the operation of the Holy Spirit just as any other man. Not only was he " led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil " (Matt. iv. 1), but the prophetic voice of Isaiah

« Ad TraU, 10, andAdJShnym., 2 and 4.

1863.] Exegesis of Difficult Passages. 809

ascribes his actions as the Messiah to the immediate operation of the same spirit. Matt. xii. 18^ '^ Behold my servant^ whom I have chosen ; my beloved^ in whom my soul is well pleased : / ten// put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles/' But the most important passage in its bearing upon ibis point is perhaps Heb. ix. 14 : ^' How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ?'^ Thus making the work of the Atone- ment itself dependent upon the operation or influence of the Holy Spirit.

The important passage (Phil. ii. 6 — 11) which so clearly proves the antecedent existence of our Lord as God, is grievously marred as regards his position as man in the Authorized Version, vrhich translates iichfocev iavrov (^' emptied himself), simply '' made himself of no reputation.'^ Can stronger language be imagined than that of the original to shew how completely he divested himself of the attributes of Godhead, and for our sakes became a mere man, though in all previous time he had existed " in the form of God ?"

Every one has remarked the stress laid in the Epistle to the Hebrews on the advantage gained by the human race in the sympathy of the Son of God, who is stated (Heb. v. 15) to have been ^' tempted like us in all points, yet without sin.'' But no stress could reasonably be laid on these temptations, except as a mere formality, if they were not of a really momentous nature, if, in fact, they had not been addressed to him in his human, independently of his divine nature. We find a similar passage in Heb. ii. 17, respecting his power of sympathy with our suf- ferings under temptation on account of his own. " Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren. • . . For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." But if his temptations had been of the external and merely formal nature of which we are generally taught to consider them, this language would be a good deal worse than hjrperbolical, and would indeed involve a considerable fierafiaai^ ek aXKo yevo^:, representing him as able to sympathize with our sufferings under real and pressing temp- tations, because he had formerly gone through the form, and merely the form, of similar temptations, which to him were no temptations at all.

It would be impossible to pass over here the extraordinary passage in Mark xiv. 32 : '' But of that day or hour knoweth no one, not even the angels who are in heaven, not even the Son, but the Father." A somewhat similar, though less conclusive

310 Exegesis of Difficult Passages. [July,

statement is made in Acts i. 7 : ''It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath placed in his own power/' thus tacitly excluding the Son from participation in the secret. These passages are usually explained rightly enough by saying that as man our Lord was ignorant of this secret, while as G^ he knew both it and aU things. But the logical infer- ence which follows hence, is with equal unanimity ignored, namely, that the divine and human natures of our Lord could not have been in communication, or what he knew as God he must also have known as man.

Lastly, when our Lord uttered his cry of agony on the cross (Matt, xxvii. 46), ''Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani 1^' His human nature must surely have been enduring alone without any aid from his divine nature. Had he been supported by his own divine nature, he could scarcely have appealed to his Father in terms of such dreadful anguish. We cannot but draw hence the inference, that, as in the temptation, so also during his whole earthly life, his human nature had both to stand and go with- out the slightest aid from his divine nature, but merely, like that of other men, with the aid and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit bestowed according to laws and rules which are known to God and not to man. Thus he would have wrought his miracles, as Paul or John wrought theirs, by the Holy Spirit, who invested him with authority at his baptism and was ever with him, ex- cepting on occasions like the temptation and on the cross, when it was requisite for the carrying out of God's purposes, that his human nature should act or suffer alone. Neither is this view inconsistent with the fullest knowledge on his part of his divinity, although his human nature would not receive that knowledge directly from his divine nature, but circuitously through the Holy Spirit.

It will be observed that no stress has been laid upon the statements of our Lord's progress " in wisdom and stature in favour with God and man.'' For it might be at once replied that the divine nature probably waited until the human nature was fit to receive its communications before it entered into com- munication with it. And that time of entering into commu- nication with it might be placed at the conclusion of the temptation, were it not for other considerations. But accord- ing to our theory it was not till after the resurrection that the divine and human natures of our Lord entered into full and complete communion and communication with each other. The victory had then been completely won, and there was now no possibility of their being set at variance either by the snares of the tempter or by suffering. But it was requisite for the ful-

1863.] Exegesis 0^ Difficult Passages. 311

filment of God's gracious purposes, that all these temptations and sufferings should be gone through bond fide, and not ro Someiv. Then at length could he, who had ever existed in the form of God, return to his enjoyment of a practical equality with God in heaven, to etvai "ISA &€^, thenceforth waiting till all the enemies of truth and goodness shall be subdued beneath his feet.

Matt. xxvi. 28, " This is my blood [that] of the [new] covenant, which is being poured out for many for remission of sins.''

Mark xiv. 24. "This is my blood [that] of the [new] covenant, which is being poured out for many.''

Luke xxii. 20. " This cup, the new covenant in my blood, which (cup, not blood to, not tc3) is being poured out for you."

1 CoR. xi. 25. **This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this as often as ye drink in my commemoration."

It will be observed that we have altered the word " testament," here used by the Authorized Version, into " covenant." This we have done simply because the expressions *' blood of a testa- ment" and *' testament in blood" are neither more nor less than nonsense, nor have any parallel passages from writers either sacred or profane been cited to justify them, except it be the celebrated passage Hebrews ix. 15 — 17, which we trust we proved last October to require an entirely different though novel inter- pretation. We have also noted the variations of reading, which are considerable. Thus the Greek words equivalent to " that" and " new" are very doubtful in St. Matthew and still more so in St. Mark. In St. Luke and St. Paul there are no variations, but the latter part of the sentence, " which is being poured out for you," is in St. Luke in apposition with " this cup," not, as the Authorized Version would lead us to suppose, with " my blood." In St. Paul the word " it " is introduced in the Author- ized Version after " drink," but its insertion cannot be justified on grammatical grounds. In St. Luke there is no copula in the sentence.

The variations of St. Matthew and St. Mark present no theological or grammatical difficulties of importance. It matters practically little, whether we follow the textus receptus, and read "This is my blood of the new covenant," or several of the Uncial MSS., and read "This is my blood of the covenant." But the difficulties of construction and meaning in both St. Luke and St. Paul are very great and serious.

In the first place in St. Luke, where are we to supply the copula? Are we to translate "This cup, the new covenant in

312 Exegens of Difficult Parages. [^^7*

my bloody [is] that which is beiag poured out for you/' For grammar requires to inrep vfiAv i/cxyvofievov to be either pre- dicated of or taken with touto to ironipiov. We are sorry to see that Dean Alford quotes with approbation Ben^el's very ridiculous note^ " These words cannot be said of iron^ptov, ' nam poculum plenum non effunditur^ sed bibitur/ " Just as if the ancient Greeks and Romans did not regularly pour libations from full cups, pocula plena, before they drank of them ! Just as if David did not pour out instead of drinking the water, which three of his mighty men had obtained for him at the risk of their lives 1 (2 Sam. xxiii. 16.) It is of course impossible to gainsay that the '^ cup '^ may be here taken for its contents, and that it is the " fruit of the vine^' in the cup, not the cup itself that is represented as being ^' poured out/' Wordsworth here simply shirks the difficulty, as indeed he .generally does, when he cannot solve it.

If however we place the copula differently, we must translate " This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, the [cup which is] being poured out for you.'' No tertium quid that we can see is grammatically admissible, unless we reduce the Greek of St. Luke to a level with that of the Apocalypse, and make the nominative to xmip vpAv k/cj(yv6fiepov agree with the dative t^ aifuiTl fiov, which is what appears to be indicated by the Author- ized Version. If the similarity is to be carried out in all its parts, our Lord's body, the vehicle of his blood, would be repre- sented by the material cup, the contents of which, the wine of the sacrament, will thus naturally hold the position of his blood.

In 1 Cor. xi. 25, no direct object is provided for irhnjre, and if we were translating any other book and not the Scriptures, we should undoubtedly connect it with eU ttiv ifiifv avdfivf)<rtP, and translate " Do this, as often as ye drink in my commemora- tion." Do what? Do that which our Lord was then doing or had then done, take the cup in the hand and bless it? It is easy enough to find ex post facto illustrations of taking a cup and drinking as an act of commemoration. For instance, at many college commemorations, after dinner, the master of the college takes a cup of wine and drinks " In piam memoriam fundatoris or fundalricis/^ But was any such custom then existing, and if so, was it of a solemn and general nature? To this question we could ourselves give no answer, and in default of an answer, we should probably have considered it useless to pursue the sub- ject further, had not the elements of an answer more or less satisfactory been suggested to us.

In the second volume of his very "remarkable work on the

1863.] Exegesis of DifficuU Passages. 818

Principles of Divine Service, Mr. Freeman discusses the passage^ on which we have just been commenting, to much the same effect as we have done^ but his investigations into Jewish forms of prayer and their connexion with the Liturgies of the Christian Church give him grounds for proceeding beyond the mere query at which we had arrived. On the eve of every Sabbath, .at supper, the master of the family says grace with a cup of wine in his right hand/ and his left resting on two loaves of bread covered with a napkin. The two loaves are thus placed on the Sabbath morning also. The two loaves, according to the Jews, are in remembrance of the double portion of heavenly bread or manna which they gathered every Friday, and partook of on that day and the Sabbath in the wilderness. In the formula of prayer made use of on that occasion occur the words, "We wiU give praise to Thee for that Thou hast made our fathers inherit the good land, and for that Thou hast brought us out of the land of Egypt, and from the house of bondage ; and for the covenant, and for Thy law and Thy statutes, and for the life^ favour, and grace with which Thou hast favoured us.''

Now if this formula be really ancient, or be based upon one that was really ancient^ we certainly find in it a custom of drinking ek avafivqaiv, in commemoration of the highest and holiest matters of past favour vouchsafed to the Israelitish people. And that it, or something like it, was really in use in the olden time^ we have a fair right to infer from many passages of Scrip- ture, In Psalm cxvi. 13 we have, "I will take the cup of salva- tion and call upon the name of the Lord.'' Psalm xvi. 5, '^ The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my aij9." Jere- miah xvi. 7, " Neither shall men give them the cup of consola- tion to drink for their father or for their mother." The allu- sions to the cup of wrath given in punishment are very numerous, but their bearing upon this subject is rather that of contrast than of similarity.

It is certainly not a suggestion to be lightly passed over, whether our Lord's meaning, as expressed by St. Paul, be not this, " Do this, as oft as ye hold a festival in commemoration of me ;" '^ this " meaning a ceremony well known to and practised by the Jews in their families on the eve of every Sabbath and festival. And we think great credit is due to Mr. Freeman for the careful, elaborate, and searching manner in which he has investigated the question^

» From jf%« Booh of Itdigion^ Ocremoniet, <md Prayers cf the Jews^ asprcte- iised m i?ieir Synagogue ana Families on aU occasions. Translated from the Hebrew by Gamaliel Ben Pedahzur.

814 Exegesis of Difficult Passages. [July,

Matt. xxvi. 50.

The Authorized Version here apparently translates a relative as an interrogative. Neither do Webster and Wilkinson mend the matter by following Fritzsche in translating, " For what a purpose art thou here!" This is rightly rejected by Winer, who, however, considers the use of the relative instead of the interrogative as a mark of the'low state of the Greek language in the New Testament. But to our mind neither of these ex- planations, or rather evasions, are satisfactory. It appears to us that a question is necessary in the connexion, yet that question neither is nor can be asked by the relative o. It was asked by gesture, and the words used might be thus translated, " Friend, [that], for which you are come?" Just as we often say to an intrusive person,. " Sir, your business ?" This explanation has certainly the advantage of simplicity, and appears to us free from the objections which may reasonably be urged against all the others.

Luke xii. 53.

Canon Wordsworth endeavours to give a reason for the alter- ation of case from the dative in Trarrjp e^' vto3, /c.t.X., to the accusative in mrevdepa hrl rr)V vvfKfyrfv avrrj^;, k.tX. That reason is so peculiar that we cannot refuse it a place here. '^ In the former case he is speaking of natural relationships, in the other of affinity. In the one case the division grows up from wiihin, in the other it appears to be stirred up from without. The parents fall out of themselves with their own children; the mother-in-law is excited against her daughter-in-law.'^ Just as if mothers and daughters-in-law were not quite as likely to fall out of themselves as parents and children 1 Just as if a dis- turbing cause were not quite as likely to come from without between parents and children as between mothers and daughters* in-law !

For our own part we can see no difference at all in the ex« pressions used in different cases with the same preposition etri, except the absence or presence of the article. Where the dative is used, the article is absent ; where the accusative is used, the article is present, as well as a genitive case amounting to a pos- sessive pronoun. And in some idiomatic usage depending upon the presence or absence of the article, of which no one has as yet been able to give any account, we presume that the reason for the variation of case must be found, not in any hypothesis so arbitrary and so groundless as that put forward by the learned Canon.

1863.] Ewegeris of Difficult Passages. 315

Luke xix. 17.

It is very straoge how even industrioas and laborious men are imposed upon by a positive assertion ; and how^ in spite of themselves^ they often continue to spread it, careless of the in- consistencies into which it leads them. The note of Messrs. Webster and Wilkinson on this verse runs as follows : " iadi ixcov. Be assured that you have. There is no authority for considering ur0t to be from eifjU; Xa0i fiot Bayacov, ^sch.^ Ag., 1670^ know that thou wilt give ; XgOl <tw [sc. «v], know that thou art safe, Soph.^ 0. a, 1210. Jelf, § 682.'^

Now although these passages are correctly translated, and the principle of the construction explained by Jelf, who however does not appear to be actuated by the same animosity against the imperative mood of dfiL given in the grammar^ as is ex- hibited by Messrs. Webster and Wilkinson, yet there is abundant authority for the existence of that which they so positively deny to exist. If they had but just taken the trouble to look out ladb in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, and consulted the references there given^ they would never have committed themselves to such a note as the above. They would have found that not only does Herodotus (i., 118) use the compound 'rrdpurOi, but Eu- ripides fOr, 1327) gives an instance of to-0t, which cannot in anywise be explained as from olBa, After Electra has said, " tI 8'; a^i r/fiiv iirfxavec creva^fiaTayv. * What ? Things re- quiring lamentations on my part are happening.* '' Hermione replies, " ewfyrj/no^ XaOc rl Zl vednepov X&yet^ ; ' Speak words of good omen. And what misfortune do you speak of ?^ *'

Again, on referring to Matt. v. 25, laOc evvo&v r^ avTiBiKip aov rayv, we find no attempt on the part of Messrs. Webster and Wilkinson to explain la-6i as coming from o2Sa, but the common explanation of it as coming from elfil is tacitly ad- mitted. What then becomes of the positive assertion, that " there is no authority for considering ta-Ot to be from elfil T^ Our own opinion is that in Luke xix. 17, laOi is from etfil and not from oiZa^ though it is capable of being construed as from oZSa, as indeed Wordsworth takes it.

Gal. iii. 15—20.

It is necessary to consider this passage^ as well as others in which the word hutdrjieq occurs, with reference to the question whe- ther the word ought to be translated '' covenant'* or " testament/* And we may remark, that at the outset of this passage it appears perfectly indifferent whether we translate SulOtJkt) by "cove- nant** or "testament.** "Brethren, I am speaking in ordinary human language. No one annuls or adds additional clauses to

816 Exegesis of Difficult Passages. [July,

even a man's covenant (or testament) m^hen it has been legally ex;ecuted. But the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed ; it does not say, And to his seeds, as in the case of many ; but as in the case of one, And to his seed, which is Christ/' As we go on, however, we shall find it impossible to use the word '^ tes- tament,'' which must therefore be rejected throughout." Now this I mean ; the law which was made four hundred and thirty years afterwards, does not invalidate a 'covenant' (it is impossible to say ' testament' where there is no such a thing as a will or tes- tament alluded to from Genesis to Malachi) previously legally executed by God, so as to supersede the promise. For if the inheritance be from the law, it is no longer from promise ; whereas God granted it to Abraham by promise. Why then the law? It was instituted (or ' added,' if irpoa^erkOrj be read) ' on account of the transgressions (till the seed should come to whom the promise had been made) being dispensed (or ordained) through angels by the agency of a mediator. But the term ' mediator ' is not applicable to one party, but God is one." The inference is that the law, an arrangement made between two parties, God and the Israelites, caunot interfere with the promise, which was made by God to Abraham in his sole capacity, and without any reciprocal engagements. The proof of this lies in the use of the term " mediator," which is inapplicable to a promise made by God, although applicable to a case like the law, in which a temporary arrangement was made between God and a portion of his creatures. Had St. Paul written to Be fiealni^ instead of 6 hi fi€alTi]<i, there would have been little difldculty in the latter part of the passage. An explanation very similar to the above is given by Conybeare and Howson, but unaccountably neglected by EUicott, who favours the view of Windisch, that '^ God was one because he was both giver and receiver united," the 'logical significance and profundity" of which seem to us little better than raving.

Heb. vi. 17—18.

The Authorized Version of this passage requires but slight alteration ; and when corrected will run as follows : " And herein God, wishing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, mediated with an oath, in order that by means of two immutable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong en- couragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us." But the interpretation of these words has never been satisfactorily made out. In the first place, a question has been raised about the meaning of iv cS. But nothing can be

1868.] Exegesis of Difficult Passages. 817

simpler or plainer than the sense given by the Authorized Ver- sion *' wherein/' when resolved as above into a demonstrative adverb and a conjunction. Surely hf ^ must refer to what has pre- ceded^ and signify " in the matter of Abraham and the promise/'

Secondly^ we find ourselves in the midst of confusion when we attempt to investigate the meaning of the " two immutable things^ in which it was impossible that God should lie/' Some have considered the promise and the oath which God swore by himself to Abraham to be meant. Thus the immutability of God's counsel or purpose would have been confirmed (1.) by the promise; (2.) by the oath. But here it may be observed that the promise was only the external expression and signification of the counsel or purpose to man^ so that it is really ultimately identical with that counsel or purpose^ and also that the oath was clearly given to prove the immutability of the promise. So that we have one immutable thing proving the immutability of the other. Again^ others have taken the oath of God to Abraham as one immutable thing, and that previously mentioned, '' The Lord sware and will not repent ; thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek :" as the other. But then it may be replied, that two oaths are no greater security than one, and that a repetition of the same thing, an oath, can scarcely give the security of the two separate immutable things, which appear to be indicated by the words of the passage taken by itself.

We think that the key to this difficulty is to be found in the history of Abraham, to which reference is here tacitly made, and which the readers of the epistle are expected to bear in mind. Let us then first enquire how God, according to the Book of Genesis, proceeded to display to Abraham the immu- tability of his promise. He did so by an oath, as recorded in Genesis xxii. 16, after the sacrifice of Isaac; but he had pre- viously given him the security of a covenant ratified by sacrifice, which we find narrated at length in Gen. xv. 7 — 18, which sacrifice he appropriated to himself, as the maker of the cove- nant, by passing between the pieces into which the sacrificed victims were divided, under the symbols of a smoking furnace and a burning lamp. If then God's proceeding towards Abra- ham is to be our guide, it is rendered probable that He would also display the immutability of his covenant to the inheritors of the promise by a sacrifice as well as an oath. It must be remembered also, that a man's bare word or promise was not considered of much value among the ancients, whose main de- pendence was upon oaths and sacrifices, and that God regularly acted as a man of the day in his dealings with men. Let us then scan carefully the remainder of the epistle and see whether

818 Exegesis of Difficult Passages. [J^uly,

we can find any allusion to another immutable things or to a further security on Qod's part for the unchangeableness of his counsel.

Reading on^ we find the first allusion to any such thing in vii. 22, in which Jesus is called the " surety {lyyvoi;) of a bettpr covenant '/' a second in vii. 27, in which Jesus is said to ofiTer up himself; a third in viii. 6, in which Jesus is called the *' mediator of a better covenant/' where the word "mediator'' at once refers us back to vi. 17, " where Gt)d is said to have " mediated with an oath /' and a fourth, which is by far the most striking, in ix. 15 — 17 (which has been already explained in our last October number), in which the strongest language is used respecting the necessity of the death of the maker of a covenant being brought to bear upon that covenant, in order to make it certain and unchangeable. We conclude, therefore, that in these passages, especially the one last mentioned, we have been led to the second immutable thing, whereby God dis- plays the immutability of his counsel to the inheritors of the promise.

Assuming the correctness of the above interpretation, we cannot but remark on the wonderful manner in which it exhibits the Almighty as condescending to meet the iCurrent views, and adapting his plans to the customs and understanding of his creatures. Under the priestly theory of sacrifice, which was common to both Jews and Gentiles, men bound themselves to their treaties and covenants by oaths and sacrifices. God, acting in all respects as a man would do, binds himself (1.) to Abra- ham by a sacrifice and an oath, (2.) to the inheritors of the promise by an oath and a sacrifice, even the sacrifice of his dear and only Son.

A. H. W.

1863.] ( 819 )

THE BETBATAL OF OUB LOBD.

In the lists of the disciples of Christ given by three of the eTangelists (Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 19; Luke vi. 16)^ the last named is Judas Iscariot^ '^ who also betrayed him.^' From John vi. 71^ etc.^ we learn that his father's name was Simon ; and his own name^ Iscariotes, or Iscariot^ is supposed by some to be derived from Kartha or Kartan in Galilee (Josh. xxi. 32) ; but by others from Kerioth in Judaea (Josh. xv. 25). Dr. Robinson met with the ruins of a place in the south of Judah called El Kuryetein — the two cities ; and^ though the rest of the disciples of our Lord were Galileans^ this may have been the birthplace of Judah^ and his name Iscariot may mean simply n^i;^ th<, ish Kerioth^ a man of Kerioth. To other conjectures relative to the derivation of the word it is scarcely necessary to refer.* Judas was probably about the same age as Jesus^ so that at the time that Mary was rejoicing over her son in the stable at Bethlehem, and angels were proclaiming the Saviour's birth to the shepherds, his parents were gazing with fond admi- ration on their boy, and wondering, perhaps, as did many parents in Judaea respecting their offspring, " what manner of child he would be.'' The first name, .fudas, was but another form of the name Judah, and when his father gave it to him he would, perhaps, repeat the words of Jacob, '' Judas, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise," and would indulge the hope that his son would become a praise to his family and his tribe.^ Little did Simon think that the name of his son would become a by- word and a reproach throughout the world ; but parents not a few, who have entertained high expectations respecting their children, have, through the perversity of those children, expe- rienced only sorrow and disappointment.''

When Judas first became a disciple of Christ there was doubtless something hopeful in his character, for he, as well as the rest of the twelve, was given to Jesus by the Father ; and had he been a decidedly bad man, at the time, we may be sure that Jesus would not have chosen him as one of his apostles. It is true that his conduct was foreseen from the first, and was, moreover, a subject o£ Old Testament prophecy ; but never can we entertain the thought that he was taken into the society of

* In John yi. 71, the reading of the Codex Sinaiticas is lovHay "Xifioiyos axo Kofnmrov,

* Strange stories are related of the childhood of Judas in the Apocraphal Gospel of the Infancy, which, however, are deserving of no attention. See Jones on the Canon, vol. ii., p. 203.

' See Keble's Lyra Innocentiamj Hymn 13.

820 The Betrayal of cur Lord. [July,

our Lord because prophecy had spoken of him, and in order that prophecy might be fulfilled. Foreknowledge is not foreappoint- ment^ nor is the prediction of what is foreknown the cause of its fulfilment. But Judas, though at first an inquiring spirit, seek- ing after truth, and especially anxious to find the Messiah, having associated himself with Jesus of Nazareth, believing that in him he had found whom he sought, was soon overcome by an avaricious temper which was the master-passion of his soul. He probably possessed a talent for economy^ and, as Jesus and his disciples were poor, it was desirable that such a talent should be used. To Judas, therefore, was committed the task of taking charge of the little stock of money they possessed, and of ex- pending it in provisions as their circumstances required. Did he appropriate some of the contents of "the bag" to himself? Such is the fact implied when, by St. John, he is styled " a thief;" and, about a year after he became a disciple of Christ, Jesus, having him in view, said to the apostle, " Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil V*^ A " heart- piercing question " this, as Stier calls it, for it was as if Jesus had said, " The betrayer and destroyer insinuates himself into the narrowest circle, and most immediate fellowship with my person ; there is one among you who is the devil in relation to me — that is, his elect instrument, one who has fallen through a devilish spirit into the ministry, and is as it were the represen- tation of the devil."''

Thus early, then, after joining the company of the disciples, did the evil dispositions of his nature manifest themselves. He was free at first to have chosen a very different path — a path of honourable service in which he might have obtained greater dignity than any of the kings and princes of the earth ; but he allowed "the cursed lust of gold" to swallow up his thoughts, and Satan, seizing upon this passion of his soul, found him an easy prey, and led him captive at his will. It may be asked, why did not Jesus expel him from the number of the twelve as soon as his real character was known? but the same question might be asked with reference to every false professor, and espe- ciaUy with reference to every unworthy minister of the cross. Had he been expelled he might have done great injury to Christ and to his followers before the time ; and, moreover, he was per- mitted to remain in their society, that he might stand as a warning to professors to the end of this world.

That Judas would understand his Master's words — " one of you bath a devil," as referring to himself, there can be little

' John yi. 70. See Stier on the passage.

1863.] The Betrayal of our Lord. 821

doubt ; bnt instead of receiving them as a solemn warnings he suffered that devil to lurk within his breast^ and to gain over him greater and yet greater power^ until he could think of nothing but filthy lucre, and began to entertain the idea of sell- ing even Christ Himself. It was he, who, when Mary, in the fulness of her love to the Saviour, anointed his feet with the precious ointment at Bethany, said, '^Why was not this oint- ment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?'' but we are told that he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but " because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein /' or, in other words, because he thought that, had it been sold, the three hundred pence would have fallen into his hands, and that he would have been able to appropriate it to himself. What a picture this of consummate hypocrisy I " Be- nevolence covered theft; the mask of good works the inward lust of monev.'' O sad condition of those whom covetousness holds in bonds ! Slaves to the tyranny of sin, they are con* demned to wage an everlasting war with turbulent passions, depraved appetites, and inveterate habits of vice ; avarice mean and miserable; ambition never satisfied; pride puffed up with wind ; vanity decked with feathers ; envy, wrath, intemperance, and every inordinate affection of the soul ; for "the love of money is the root of all evil ; which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.''

This event — the anointing at Bethany — took place six days before the passover (John xii. 1), or on the last sabbath prior to the crucifixion. Three or four days later Judas, with the rebuke of his Master burning on his breast, went unto the chief priests, and said unto them, " What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you ?" (Matt, xxvi, 14; Mark xiv. 10; Luke xxii. 3, 4.) We fancy we can see him leaving the scene at Bethany, his lip curling with defiance, his countenance indicating the utmost rancour, and his whole soul filled with anger and vexation ; and, brooding over what had happened for several days, he is ripe for any plot which the wicked one may suggest. And now Satan, whose servant he is already, enters into him again, and readily conducts him into the presence of the chief priests. And there he stands — one of the twelve — one of the disciples of the man Christ Jesus, whose public entry into the city, and whose cleans- ing of the temple, had given to these priests so much umbrage. Do they know Judas? Are they acquainted with the fact that he belongs to the company of Jesus? It is highly probable; but if they do not, he soon informs them, and then comes his question, "What will ye give me? and I will deliver him unto

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. VI. Y

822 The Betrayal of our Lord. [J»ly»

you/' Horrible words ! they almost make our blood turn chill. And yet how often have they been repeated since^ if not with equal guilt, yet with a large amount of treacherousness and folly. What will ye give me? is the question put by thousands; and for money they will sell their sovereign, their country, nay even their Saviour Himself, and their own souls also ; the one idea of wealth engrossing all their thoughts, and swallowing up every noble, generous, and God-like principle. It has been said, indeed, that every man has his price ; but this is not true, for there are, and there always have been, men whom no offers of wealth or honour could allure from the path of righteousness and truth ; and who, sooner than renounce their allegiance to the Lord Jehovah, would go into a dark and loathsome cell, or would meet death itself in its most appalling forms ; but there are not a few whom the promise of a little paltry pelf has in- duced to commit acts of the most fearful turpitude; whilst there are others who would perhaps take the bait if it were laid before them, provided only that it was sufficiently attractive.

The Sanhedrim had already resolved on putting Jesus to death; for the popular feeling displayed on his entry into Jerusalem had alarmed them, and the chief priests and Pharisees having gathered a council, said, ''What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him, and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation '^ (John xi. 47, 48). Glad were they, therefore, of the proposal of Judas, for their object was to *' take him by craft " (Mark xiv. 1, 11), fearing that any attempt to seize his person openly would be resented by the people ; but supposing that if he were once a prisoner, the popular feeling in his favour would soon subside. Hence they promised the traitor "to give him money ;'* as St. Mark and St. Luke narrate; whilst St. Matthew mentions the sum agreed upon — "thirty shekels of silver.^' Some have supposed that this was not the full amount that Judas was to receive, but merely the earnest of a much larger sum ; but small as it appears, for its value would not be more than three or four pounds of our money, it was doubtless the whole ; for the Sanhedrim, thinking that in some way or other they would be able to take Jesus, even if this plan failed them, would not be likely to offer more ; and thirty shekels was just the price of a common slave; or the value set upon a Jewish servant (see Exod. xxi. 32) . And was it for such a paltry sum- as this that Iscariot undertook to betray his Lord ? This, to some, has appeared so incredible, that they have supposed the traitor to be actuated by some other motive besides avarice; and, as we shall hereafter see, this is not improbable. Yet the

1863.] TU Betrayal of our Lord. 323

diirty pieces of silver^ inasmuch as they were all he could get^ were an inducement to him to perpetrate his crime ; and he left the council-room, resolved^ from that moment, to seek ''an opportunity/' " in the absence of the multitude/' to betray him unto them (Matt. xxvi. 16; Mark xiv. 11 ; Luke xxii. 6, 7). He had coveted the sum for which the precious ointment might have been sold, — three hundred pence, or about nine pound sixteen shillings of our money ; but that he could not obtain, for Mary was so lavish in her love to Christ that she poured the whole of that ointment on his feet. Now, however, Judas thought that he would soon obtain nearly half that sum, and to obtain even that he would sell even him whom he had called his Master and his Lord. What a contrast between Mary and Judas. She valued the Lord so much that she thought no gift too precious to lay at his feet ; he cared about Him so little that, for this paltry bribe, he delivered Him into the hands of His relentless foes.

It appears that the money was paid immediately, for the word €irrq<rav used by St. Matthew, and rendered in our version '^covenanted/' means also "weighed out/' payment of the precious metals being made, in ancient times, by weight. Thus was the prophecy of Zechariah— " So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver " — literally fulfilled ; and thus did Judas already get possession of the bribe, which was soon afterwards to be returned with remorse and shame. Unhappy man ! What good did his ill-gotten gain do him ? He contrived to keep it for a few hours, but was afterwards compelled by an accusing conscience to bring it back to the very men from whom he had received it. As yet, however, the hour of vengeance had not come ; and one oi the most horrible features in the character of this man is the audacity with which, after this bargain with the Sanhedrim, he again appeared in the compaoy of the twelve, and even sat down with them and with his Master at the paschal supper. There is some excuse for a man who commits an act of perfidy, or of violence in the heat of passion; but when a man can deliberately plan a deed of wrong, can coolly pursue his purpose for several hours or days, can seek the society of the very persons whose destruction he has resolved upon, pre- tending to be his sincere and faithful friend, he must be a very monster of iniquity; but all this, and even more, did Judas Iscariot the son of Simon. Painters have represented him at the paasover-table, with the bag in which he kept the money, grasping it with all the tenacity of a miser; nor is it at all improbable that he had the thirty pieces of silver about his person at the very moment that those fearful words were spoken,

Y 2

324 The Betrayal of our Lord. [July,

'' Woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." It is evident from Matt. xxvi. 23, etc., that Judas partook^ with the rest of the disciples, of the paschal feast ; and from John xiii. 2—4, 17 — 19, that Jesus condescended to wash his feet; yek none of these things caused him to relent, or induced him to reflect on the baseness of his crime. What a hell his breast must have already been ! what fiendish passions must have been raging in his soul! But the expression, ''Satan entered into him," explains the mystery ; for the man who gives himself up to Satanic influence becomes more cruel than a beast of prey, and more subtile than the serpent that conceals itself in the brake.

" What thou doest do quickly," said Jesus, seeing that the man was bent upon his object. This was the final giving up of Judas to his sin and to his fate, whilst it was also an intimation that Jesus was now ready to be delivered up into the hands of men. The expression is most emphatic. It is not, *' that which thou unit do/' but, o woieU, " that which thou art doing ;" that which thou hast fully determined upon, and art even now engaged in, "do more quickly" {rdxiov) and delay not. So God said to Balaam, '' If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them " (Numb. xxii. 20). And in like manner our Lord addressed the Pharisees, " Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers" (Matt, xxiii. 32, comp. Amos i. 8). Far more fearful, however, is this word to Judas, and, in the strictest sense, it is perhaps without a parallel. Could Judas understand it, as some have thought he did, in a milder sense, as impljring that he was at liberty to proceed with his plans, and that he would thereby hasten the accomplishment of Christ's purpose, which was, not to die, but to establish his kingdom by the exercise of miraculous power? We are persuaded that this notion cannot be sustained. Jesus had now repeatedly declared that he should be " put to death," and though at first the dis« ciples ''understood not the saying," because it was "hid from them," they must by this time have seen that their Master's words were to be taken literally, and that he really did intend to permit his enemies to take away his life. Even Judas was aware of this, and the solemn warnings previously addressed to him must have convinced him, even if he knew it not before, that his intended act was one of base and cruel treachery, and that it would actually lead to his Master's crucifixion.

Yet he hastened to execute his foul design. His soul, wrapt in the gloom of night, he went out of the passover-chamber, into the night that already mantled the city, and wended his

1863.] The Betrayal of our Lord. 325

steps to the chief priests and scribes. What says he to them as they ask his errand ? We can imagine what he says : " Now is the time^ — give me a band of armed men^ and the Nazarene shall soon be in your hands. Haste, let there be no delay .^'

There stood on the north side of the temple-area a lofty fortress, originally built by the Maccabees, and called by them Bans, but subsequently rebuilt by the first Herod, and called the tower of Antonia. Its interior was as large and as conve- nient as a palace, being divided into rooms of various kinds^ with baths and galleries and broad spaces for camps, so that it possessed all the convenience of a large city. Within it lay a Roman legion, ready armed day and night, whose duty it was to guard the temple, and, on the Jewish festivals, to prevent or put down any outbreak among the people.' If the chief magis- trate of the city were informed of an insurrection, he could call out of this fortress a band of men to arrest the leaders of it, and thus stay its progress ; and during this period of Jewish history it is probable that the services of such a band were not unfrequently required. On the arrival, then, of Judas in the presence of the Sanhedrim, they dispatch a messenger with all speed, probably to Pilate, with the information that certain persons are plotting an insurrection, and a request that instantly, and without delay, an armed company may be sent to arrest the ringleader. It is done, and in the space of an hour or less, and whilst Jesus and the eleven still linger in the upper room, the soldiers arrive at the place where Judas is waiting for them, and with this escort — rifv airiipav, the officers of the council — inrffoercUj and a miscellaneous concourse of people (see John xviii. 3 ; Matt. xxvi. 47), the traitor proceeds to execute his design. See him at the head of this motley assembly, maddened with rage against his Lord and Master, and trying to inspire his new associates with the malignity that inflames his own breast. Alas I there is not one in that multitude so full of Satanic wickedness as the man who so lately sat at the paschal feast. And first he leads the band, in all probability, to the house in which his Lord had washed his feet. He finds, how- ever, that the little company has departed, and now it is, per- haps, that he gives vent to his rage in oaths and curses, for the Psalmist had said of him, ^' As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him ; as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him ; as he clothed himself with cursing like as with a garment, 80 let it come into his bowels as water, and like oil into his bones" (Psalm cix. 17, 18) ; but he knows whither his Master,

♦ See JosephuB, WarSf etc., v., v., 8.

326 The Betrayal of our Lord, [July,

or He whom he once called his Master^ has probably gone, for ofttimes had He led his disciples to the quiet seclusion of the Mount of Olives^ and hence we may imagine Judas saying, " Come along ; they are not here, but I know where to find them,^' and onward he conducts them towards the garden of Gethsemane.

Jesus and the three disciples have just rejoined the eight when the multitude arrive. And what a scene is witnessed now ! It is moonlight, yet they come with lanterns and torches, as if they supposed that He whom they sought would be hid in some dark place ; and they are armed too with weapons — swords and staves (Matt. xxvi. 47; John xviii. 3), as if they expected the most determined resistance. And now the solemn silence of that quiet spot, which had been broken only by the sighs and prayers of the Man of sorrows, is broken again by the dis- cordant voices of Roman soldiers and the noisy clamour of Jewish officers and chief priests/ But mark the perfect calm- ness of the Saviour ! He fears not to meet the hostile band, but goes forth and says unto them, "Whom seek ye?'' They answer, ^^ Jesus of Nazareth f^ and he says at once, '^ I am he.''

What followed must be carefully observed. We should have expected that they would instantly have seized Jesus, but instead of this " they went backward, and fell to the earth." What was the cause of this sudden fall ? Did Jesus intend to throw them down ? and was it by the exercise of his miraculous power that they were thus repelled ? No ; the lowly Saviour was not disposed at this time to put forth his might in such a way. It was simply the majestic word, '^I am he," — iyw etfu, that, piercing the consciences of these sinners, made them quail for a moment before his presence, and filled them with such awe that they could not stand upon their feet. Even in the presence of ordinary and even wicked men, enemies have been smitten with sudden terror. Thus when a Gaul entered the prison of Marina with authority to take off his head, the stern countenance of the prisoner so disarmed him, that as he heard the exclamation, "Tunc homo, audes occidere Caium Marium," the sword dropped from his hand : and of Fertinax it is related that he refused to fly in the hour of danger, and that his undaunted courage and intrepidity caused the soldiers, who were sent to arrest him, to retire, though one of them afterwards advanced and plunged into his breast the fatal javelin. No wonder, then, that before the " sinless one " these soldiers, officers, and priests fell backward. He had not said this time, "It is I, be not

f For acoordinff to Luke xxii. 52, Bome of theae^ together vfiih captains of the temple, and elders, had in their hlind zeal accompanied the armed hand.

1863.] The Betrayal of our Lord. 327

afraid, therefore did they fear, becaase thej bad gone out against hiin/^ Doubtless the traitor himself, for the moment terror-stricken by that well-known voice, lay prostrated on the ground before Him whom he had once acknowledged as his Lord ; whilst the whole of those banditti trembled in his pre- sencej and involuntarily did homage to Him as the king of the Jews.

Speedily, however, they recovered their self-possession, for the pride of their nature would be mortified at this circumstance, and they would almost instantly spring up upon their feet again. Yet if Jesus had so wiUed it not one of them could have risen up; but ''in the transcendant elevation of his repose,^' He calmly waits until they are prepared to prosecute their object, and then he asks them again, '' Whom seek ye ?" They reply, " Jesus of Nazareth •/' and he answers, " I have told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way/' What composure ! what dignity I what courage. It is asto- nishing that they did not fall back a second time ; but he spake these words not to terrify them, but rather to intimate to them that he was ready to deliver himself up into their hands. At the same time he requests that to his followers no harm should be done, thus proving that he loves them still, though they had failed to watch with him in his agony and distress of soul. This request, or command rather, for Jesus ruled even in the midst of his enemies, was uttered, says St. John, '' that the saying might be fulfilled which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me I have lost none'' (John xviii. 9; compare xvii. 12). But was it of their bodily safety that he had said these words ? no, but he provided for that with a view to their spiritual salvation, which might have been greatly endangered had they been made prisoners at this time, since their faith was too weak as yet to endure even the loss of liberty for his sake. Thus is the pastoral care of the great Shepherd for his sheep displayed, that, whilst for their sakes he is willing to suffer himself, he throws over them his protecting arm and preserves them from the perils to which they are exposed. He becomes their substitute, and takes upon himself their transgressions, saying as it were with David, and that not to these banditti merely, but to the violated law of God, " Even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed ; but as for these* sheep, what have they done?" (1 Chron. xxi. 17). Yes, and for his sake the sheep are spared, though in fact de- serving of the utmost punishment. The innocent one suffers ; the gmlty are set free.

All this, which is related only by St John, took place most certainly ere yet the traitor had had time to draw near enough

328 The Betrayal of our Lord. i^^Js

to effect his object. But he had given the soldiers a sign, say- ing, '^ Whomsoever I shall kiss^ that same is he, hold him fast '' (Matt. XX vi. 48; Mark xiv. 44); or as St. Mark expresses it, ^' Take him, and lead him away safely.^' Did he say this ironi- cally, as some have supposed, meaning, '^ Hold him fast if you can;" and expecting that Jesus would rid himself from their grasp? In that case he must have thought of cheating the Sanhedrim, and his conduct, even then, must be looked upon as detestable; but we do not view his words in this light, but rather as an intimation to the soldiers that, having given the kiss to Jesus, his part in the work of apprehending Him was done, and they were to be responsible for the rest. Did he then give Jesus the kiss? Yes; for though after Christ had said '' I am He,'' the sign was in fact unnecessary ; yet '^ to maintain his consistency and redeem His word,'' as Stier remarks, he must needs give it, and though, perhaps, the first to fall to the ground, in the deep depravity of his heart he would be the first to rise again ; and, as their leader, he would try to inspirit his followers and to encourage them to the performance of their task. He drew near, therefore, to Jesus and said, ''Hail Master," and kissed Him (Matt. xxvi. 49; Mark xiv. 15). What a kiss was this ! It was not as some have thought a repeated kiss, or an embrace, but a single kiss, <f>tKi]fia ; yet it was such as to distin- guish it for ever as the vilest kiss ever given by the lips of man. That of Joab's to Amasa was but a feeble type of it ; it was like the hiss of the serpent as it dart^ its fang into its victim, and the words by which it was preceded, " Hail Master," or "Master, Master," (a mocking salutation) equally betrayed the desperate malignity that rankled in the apostate's breast.

Yet Jesus received this kiss ! O, how much His love could bear ! He had said, " Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also ;" and now that He Himself is smitten — smitten with a kiss which, when deceitful, is the worst of all blows. He does not resent it as He might have done, but calmly submits to the indignity, and only says, ''Companion, wherefore art thou come? — ^but immediately afterwards, as Luke represents, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss ?" Yet if the traitor had an^ feeling left, he must have heard these words with strange emotions of confusion and surprise. Jesus does not say to him, "Friend " — <l>£\o^, wherefore art thou come ? but " Companion " — h-dipof:, a word of lower signification, for if Judas had once borne the higher designation, he is worthy of it no longer, and any allusion to friendship it was impossible for Jesus now to make. He could address him only by the name " companion," and that only to remind him that such he had

1863.] the Betrayal of our Lord. 829

been ouce. And the question — ^what did that imply ? It was as if Jesus had said, ^' And art thou really come to effect this work f But this was not all. In the presence of that multi- tude He calls the traitor by name^ thus giving all present to understand who and what he is — that he had been a disciple and that he was now a traitor — and thus silently condemning them for giving themselves up to the guidance of such a man. And what an emphasis is there in every word of that question^ *^ Judas ! betray est thou the Son of man with a kiss ?** Its force can scarcely be expressed^ but we may paraphrase it thus; " Betrayest thou Judas ; of all this company^ — thou my former acquaintance and friend^ — thou who so lately satest at my table ; — betrayest thou Him who is the Son of man with a kiss?^^ And perhaps at the moment these words were uttered the light of the moon fell on the face of that Son of man and revealed to Judas the piercing glance of His once loving eye — the prelude of that glance which Judas will behold when he stands before the bar at the last day ; for this was the farewell word and the farewell look of Jesus on the traitor^ until that fearful hour^ when^ as Krummacher observes^ ^'the interrogation wiU be changed into a naked judicial declaration^ ''Thou betrayedst the Son of man with a kiss.'^

Perhaps even now the unhappy man could bear no more; and hence he probably retired from the scene smitten^ as with a dagger^ to the heart, — his strength lost, his spirits gone, as is often the case the moment after a man has uttered a word or committed an act which his conscience tells him is untrue and wrong. It is as if he were struck with a kind of spiritual paralysis by which his whole nature is suddenly benumbed, and yet at the same time tormented beyond measure. Not just yet, however, did the conscience of Judas assert its supremacy and speak with a voice he could no longer hush, and what his real feelings were for the next few hours it is impossible for us to know.

No sooner had the traitor^s kiss been given than the soldiers stepped forward and laid their rude hands upon the Son of man. O what a scene ! The disciples could not bear it, and they cried as with one voice, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword ?" (Luke xxii. 49, 50; John xviii. 10, etc.). Whilst Peter, with his wonted zeal and rashness, drew his weapon and smote a servant of the high priest named Malchus, and cut off his right ear. Those who neglect to use spiritual weapons usually have re- course to fleshly ones. Thus Peter and the rest of the eleven having failed to watch and pray, now thought it necessary to defend their Master with the sword, and, but for His gracious

880 The Betrayal of our Lord. [July,

interference^ would soon have brought upon themselves the re- sentment of the whole multitude. It was not in this way that they could honour Christ ; neither is it by means of this kind that He is honoured now. But what did He? what could He do but that which the narrative relates ? The ear of Malchus was hanging by a thread when^ in a moment^ Jesus touched it and healed him, thus displaying His miraculous power even in the midst of His shame and humiliation. Yet to perform this act of kindness He stooped to ask permission of the soldiers. Doubtless the multitude were enraged by what had taken place, and, amidst the excitement that prevailed Jesus was prevented coming near to Malchus ; but, with all the mildness and dignity of His nature. He said to those who had seized Him, *' Suffer ye thus far ;'* that is, '^ Permit me for a moment to interfere ?'' and thus did he repair the mischief that had been done, and pre- vent the conflict which would otherwise have ensued. He then turned to Peter and said, '^Put up again thy sword into his place ; for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword; — ^the cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink it?'' (Matt. xxvi. 62; John xviii. 11). The sword has ''its place/' and there are times when it is right and even necessary to draw it ; but the church, through all ages is here taught by her Lord that it is not to be used in defence of the truth, for the truth discards it, and goes forth to conquer in her native majesty and power. It was not to be used then, when Jesus was about to sufier; it is not to be used now for the propagation of the Gos- pel or the enlargement of Christ^s kingdom in the earth. The civil magistrate may bear it, and it may be borne when absolutely necessary, in defence of personal liberties and rights; but the Christian minister may not use it, either to correct the erring or to bring back the wanderer into the fold. All that take it, having no authority from Grod to do so, shall perish with it; and perishing with it shall have no claim to martyrdom. Had Peter been slain that night, (and but for his Lord's miraculous interference in healing Malchus he probably would have been,) no martyr's crown would have been awarded him, though, appa- rently he fought on behalf of his Master's rights.

Having thus repelled the rashness of Peter, Jesus adds, ac- cording to St. John, '' the cup which my father hath given me shall I not drink it ?" He had prayed that if it were His Father's will the cup might pass from Him ; but now that it was put into His hand, and that he saw it to be His Father's will that He should drink it, He was grieved with the disciple who would fain have dashed it from His lips. Not the sword, but the cup was now His choice, and to accomplish the purposes of His

1863.] The Betrayal of our Lord. 381

Father's love He was now " ready to be offered," and would fain hasten to the altar of the cross, already prepared for him in the counsels of the eternal mind. It is a remarkable fact that John, who docs not record the prayer in Gethsemane, is the only evangelist who has preserved this saying respecting the cup ; an instance, as Paley observes, of undesigned harmony in the nar- ratives of the different evangelists, and also a proof that the metaphor in the prayer as well as in this saying referred to death.

But another word was addressed to Peter which John does not record : ^' Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" (Matt. xxvi. 53, 54.) Peter, in his folly, thought that his Master needed the sword to defend Him; he is here given to understand that had his Master wished to be defended, he could have summoned to his aid hosts of angelic beings, who would have put all his enemies to flight at once. Angels are frequently spoken of as armies, and, in allusion perhaps to the Roman soldiers before him, Christ here speaks of legions of them ; a legion among the Romans consisting of six thousand men. Not one legion of angels, however, would have come at his request, but twelve; — a legion for himself, and a legion for each of the eleven ; — nay more than even these, so numerous are those glorious beings who dwell in the immediate presence of the eternal king. But had he prayed for them ; and had they come, as, in answer to his prayer, they would have done, what a scene would have occurred I As, when the army of the Assyrians fell before a single angel; before the twelve legions, that multitude with staves and swords would have be- come as dead men ; the brightness of the moon would have been eclipsed, and the night would have become radiant with a glory brighter than the sun's; and Jesus and his disciples would have been borne triumphant from that field of conflict, whilst, had their enemies survived, they would have been filled with shame, and covered with disgrace. Yes — but then, the Scriptures which foretold of the sufferings and death of the Son of Ood would not have been frdfiUed, and then mankind would not have been redeemed. O blessed Saviour that thou didst restrain the prayer which would have brought thee angelic aid, and didst rather Did those legions look in adoring reverence as thou wast led to the cross and lifted up thereon !

And now Jesus addresses himself to the multitude. They had listened perhaps to his rebuke of Peter with astonishment ; now they are hushed whilst he speaks once more to them. It is, however, to the chief priests, the captains of the temple, and

&32 The Betrayal of our Lord. [July,

the elders^ that he specially directs his emphatic remonstrance (see Luke xxii. 52): "Are ye come as against a thief^ with swords and staves^ for to take me ? I sat daily with you teach- ing in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me (Matt. xxvi. 55 ; Mark xiy. 48, 49) ; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness'^ (Luke xxii. 53). "He feels/^ as Stier observes, "in his perfect humanity the indignity which is inflicted upon him ; but turns that at once into a lamentation and complaint over their sin, which in that indignity he deeply feels and resents.'' Already is he numbered with the transgressors — already is he dealt with as a vile malefactor ; but he endures all with patience, "for it is their hour, and the power of darkness.^' When he taught in the temple they would have taken him, but they could not, "because his hour was not yet come^' (John vii. 30); now, because it was come, — their hour to triumph, his hour to submit, — they were permitted to take him, as the agents of the wicked one under whose influence all this was done.

And here, for a moment, we must leave this scene to look once more at the traitor Judas. He has, as it would seem, already gone, for his part in the transaction of that momentous hour is acted out. Whither does he go ? Home to his dwelling to enjoy his gains, and glut over the thought that he has accom- plished his design ? If so, it is but for a short time ; for observe him a few hours after. He is in the city, mingling with the crowds, but anxiously, as it would seem, watching the result of his abominable deed. Ah ! his conscience is already saying to him, "Thou hast betrayed the innocent blood,^' and his only hope now is that his Master, who, he knows, is able to work miracles, will rescue himself out of the hands of his enemies, and at once assume his kingdom and his throne. It has been supposed that this was the principal motive by which Judas was actuated in pursuing the course he did — that he expected that " by putting his Master into the hands of his enemies, he should force him to make such a display of power, as would at once lead to his being triumphantly seated on the throne of David, as a great and powerful prince.'^^ But, though some such idea may have arisen in his mind after the commission of his treacherous deed, it is scarcely probable that he entertained it previously y or that, if he did, it was the motive which induced him to betray his Lord; for, in that case, Jesus would surely have corrected his error, and not have permitted him to commit the act. Rather was it, as Neander represents, a decided hostility to Jesus which had gradually arisen in the breast of

f Archbishop Whatelj, ** On the treason of Judas Isoariot."

1863.] The Betrayal of our Lord. 833

Judas^ and which at length developed itself in the most malignant form^ that led him to the commission of his crime. His ex- pectations of the establishment of an earthly kingdom being disappointed, " his attachment turned more and more to aversion. When the manifestation of Christ ceased to be attractive it be- came repulsive ; and more and more so every day.'** He may have had some doubts relative to the Messiahship of Jesus, and never thinking that he could suffer if he were the Messiah, he perhaps supposed that by betraying him into the hands of his enemies the truth would come out — that if he were the Christ God would deliver him^ but if an impostor he would be aban- doned to his fate.

He is now waiting the result, though already his conscience begins to accuse him, and his sin to stare him in the face. But Jesus is tried ; Jesus is condemned ; Jesus is being led away to be crucified. The traitor is somewhere near, and, consequently, sees or hears what passes. Alas ! his Master does not deliver himself, nor does Judas now conclude that he is an impostor, and not the Christ. He rushes into the presence of the Sanhe- drim, offers them the thirty pieces of silver, and says, " I have betrayed the innocent blood.'^ What induces him to make this confession? It is wrung from him by his conscience, and perhaps he fancies that the chief priest will be induced to arrest the judgment. Vain hope I Their ends are being answered, and what care they for the compunctions of the traitor ? ^' What is that to us ? see thou to that,'' is their cold yet cutting reply. This was in fact a refusal to take back the thirty pieces of silver; but Judas dared not keep them, for the money he had coveted was of no more service to him, and casting them down in the temple, that is, in an apartment of the temple where the chief priests are sitting, he rushes out, lashed by the fury of remorse, and dies.

What was his real end ? St. Matthew says, '^ he went out and hanged himself/' St. Luke, that " he purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." We doubt not that, if we were in possession of all the facts, the discrepancy would-be at once removed ; and, though Alford stumbles at it, ve do not see any insuperable objection to the view which has long been entertained, that the rope by which he hung himself broke, that he was precipitated from a lofty branch, and falling on some prominent and sharp stones, he burst asunder so that his bowels obtruded. That Judas died by his own hand, is

* Neander'B Lift of Christy p. 422. Bohn's edition.

334 The Betrayal of our Lord. [July,

expressly stated by St. Matthew^ and appears to have been fore- shadowed in the end of Ahithophel^ whose treachery towards David was a type of the treachery of Jndas towards Christ, and of whom it is said that when he saw his counsel was not followed, " he hanged himself and died^' (2 Sam. xvii. 23).

And it is highly probable that this suicidal acb was com- mitted immediately after the condemnation of our Lord, and before he was put to death upon the cross. The traitor, it would seem, died thus wretchedly before his Master whom he had betrayed; and was not therefore included in the number for whom Jesus prayed, " Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.'^ His doom was sealed, and he had gone '^ to his own place,^^ ere the Lamb of God was slain, and the great atonement made. Was he then lost? Alas! notwithstanding the argu- ments advanced by several to the contrary, we can entertain no hope respecting him. True, it is said he "repented himself" — fjLeTafi€\i]0€h; but his repentance was not that of a broken and a contrite heart, but that of remorse which led to despair, and his doom was intimated in those terrible words of the Lord Jesus, "good were it for that man if he had never been born;'' words which can never be interpreted as a mere figure of speech, but must be taken literally; and therefore as conveying the idea of the irreparable loss of his soul. " Thou betrayedst the Son of Man with a kiss,'' is the bitter thought that, like a scorpion, has been preying upon the mind of that fallen apostle until now, and that — O fearful consideration — will continue to prey upon it for ever.

But what became of the thirty pieces of silver which Judas, in his despair, cast down in the temple? "It is not lawful," said the chief priests, " to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood" (Matt, xxvii. 6 — 8). What hypocrisy ! They hesitated to defile the treasury with money paid for the betrayal of an innocent person, yet they could pro<^ed with, or connive at, the act of murder which was now about to take place. They therefore resolved to purchase with this money " the potter's field " (a piece of land so called either because it belonged to a potter, or because it contained potter's clay) for the burial of strangers who should die at Jerusalem whilst visit- ing the city from a distance. In Acts i. 18 the purchase of this field is attributed to Judas himself, but that only because he had been the means of its being purchased, or because it was purchased with his money, or lastly because he had intended to purchase it himself, and had actually commenced the bargain which the chief priest heard of, and completed. " The wretdied man," says Bengel, "did not believe that the cause of Jesus

1863.] The Betrayal of our Lord. 335

would be a lasting one^ and, in the event of its coming to nought, he had marked out against the time to come, a dwelling-place for himself and those belonging to him (Psalm cix. 9 implies he had a wife and children, 'Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow : let his children be continually vagabonds and beg') whither they might betake themselves, and he wished to provide for his and their livelihood/'

It was then in this very field, aB Hofmann remarks, and as the sacred narrative seems to imply — the field on which he had set his heart, and for which he sacrificed his heritage and his bishopric, that he committed the act of suicide, and hence it was written in the Psalms, ^' Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein/' Desolate that field became. It was called Aceldama, that is, "the field of blood," — £77/909 aXfJLaro^ (Heb., M^, b;3n); and to this day the traditional site of it, which lies on the slope of the hills beyond the valley of Hinnom, south of Mount Zion, is worthy of the name. All that remains to point it out is a charnel house, now in ruins, which Dr. Robinson describes as '^ a long massive building of stone, erected in front apparently of a natural cave; with a roof arched the whole length, and the walls sunk deep below the ground outside, forming a deep pit or cellar within. An opening at each end enabled us to look in; but the bottom was empty and dry, except a few bones much decayed."

In the actual purchase of this field by the chief priests, which was probably not effected until some days after the death of Judas, a prophecy was accomplished, attributed by St. Matthew to Jeremiah, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." Now this prophecy occurs in Zech. xi. 13, 14, and not in the writings of Jeremiah; but, as Hengsten- berg has shewn, the words of the later prophet have reference to other words of the earlier one (Jer. xviii., xix.); and though Matthew might have mentioned both the prophets, yet, assum- ing as the New Testament writers often do, the accurate ac- quaintance of their readers with the Old Testament Scriptures, he mentions Jeremiah only, intending to call attention chiefly to his prophecy, but to that prophecy as repeated or referred to by Zechariah.* There is no need, then, either to call in question the inspiration of St. Matthew, or to have recourse to the expedient of altering, without warrant, the reading of the text.

The " sure word of prophecy " was fulfilled. Whatever was

< See Hengfltenberff's Chrigtchgy^ toI. iv., p. 47, etc. dark. — Lange adopts a similar view, bat refers back to Jer. xzzii. 8, 14.

336 The Betrayal of our Lord. [July,

written aforetime respecting Judas came to pass. He '^ lifted np his heeP' against Christy as Psalm xl. 9 had predicted. "Another'^ — Matthias — "took his bishopric/' according to Psalm cix. 8. " His habitation became desolate/' according to Psalm Ixix. 25 ; and^ as Zechariah had foretold^ the potter's field was purchased with the price at which he had valued the Son of Man. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who saw the end from the beginnings the sacred writers wrote these prophecies, and their words, which they themselves did not fully understand, were at length literally fulfilled.

Thornlet Smith.

Jompa, — ^Yafo (called by the Greeks Joppa, and by the Arabs of the present day Yafa) situated on the Mediterranean, fifteen leagues north-west of Jerusalem, is one of the most ancient towns of Asia. Old traditions assign it to a period even anterior to the deluge. According to the Greek &ble, it was nigh to Joppa that Andromeda was bound to the rock by the vengeance of the Nereides. Pliny relates that in his time they still shewed in the rock the marks of the chains of Andromeda. This rock was still pointed out in the time of St. Jerome. An- ciently Yafo was the only point by which the Israelites had communication with the Mediterranean. The cedars of Lebanon, which were required for the temple and other buildings, were brought to the port of Yafo (2 Chron. ii. 15 ; Ezra iii. 7); here the prophet Jonah embarked for Tarshish. Beyond this, little mention is made in the writings of the Bible about this town. Subsequently the Maoca- bean princes, Jonatlmn and Simon, wrested it firom the Syrians (1 Mac. z. 76). At the time of the insurrection of the Jews against the Romans, the town was taken by assault and burned by Cestius ; eight thousand inhabitante were mas- sacred by the Boman soldiers. Some time afterwards, the Jews rebuilt the walla of this town ; and pirates emerging from the port of Yafi^ harassed the coast of Phoenida and Syria, which caused attacks to be made anew against this town by the Romans. Vespasian conijuered it in a sudden assault by night, and having razed it, he erected on ite site a citadel, in which he placed a Soman garrison. From Constantino the Great to the invasion of the Arabs, Yafa was the seat of % bishopric. Yaffa, or Jaffa, as it was commonly called, was a very important place to Uie Christians. Baldwin the First fortified it ; Saladin retook it in 1188. Since that time it has shared the fortune which Palestine has experienced ui^er its different conquerors. At the close of the sixteenth century, when Cotwyk visited Palestine, Yafa presented no other appearance than a heap of ruins. In 1647 Monconys found nothing but a castle and three caverns hollowed out of the rock. Thus modem Yafik has had, at the most, but an existence of a century and a half. In modem times Yaffa once more became celebrated on account of the expedition of Napoleon and the horrible nuissacre of 4000 TurkiBh prisoners. This happened on the 6th of March, 1799, when the French took the town after a determined struggle. . . . After the departure of the French, the English built a bastion at the south-east angle of YafiGEu ... A wall, whose two extremities abut upon the sea, surrounds the town on the land side, and renders a conp-de-main impossible. Yaffil contains about 6000 inhabitants. Here is a place of entertainment for pilgrims ; it is a plain wooden house, well situated at the harbour, and belonging to the fathers of the convent of St. Salvador at Jerusalem. In the neighbourhood there are some magnificent gardens ; there are still found here pomegranates, fig, citron, and palm-trees, and thickets of cochineal and apple-trees. The harbour of Yaffi^ formed by an ancient jetty, is small and almost ruined. Vessels are obliged to oast anchor a great n'ay off the shore. — MunJk.

1868.] ( 337 )

ATHIOnC UTUBOIES Aim HTICNS/

TRANSLATED BY THE BEV. J. M. RODWELL, Sector of St. Ethelburga, London.

No. I. The ordinary Canon of the Abyssinian Church.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ohost, one Ood.

The Antiphon at the time of the Celebration (Kedasse)} Hallelujah.

I will go into Thy house in the multitude of Thy mercies, and in Thy fear will I worship in Thy holy temple. I will thank Thee, O Lord, with all my heart, for Thou hast heard all the words of my mouth.

Before Thine angels will I sing praise unto Thee, and wor- ship towards Thy holy temple in Thy fear. Let Thy priests be clothed with righteousness, and Thy saints rejoice with joy.

Thou shalt purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than the hail.'' Wash and cleanse me from my sin, and make me clean from mine offences.

Cleanse me from my secret sins, and spare Thy servant from that which is alien to me.

For He gave them bread from heaven, and man did eat the bread of angels.

I will wash mine hands in innocency, and compass thine altar, O Lord.

I have compassed and sacrificed sacrifices in his tabernacle, and exulted in Him.

' This teanslation is made from the edition printed at Rome in 1548. Innu- meris mendi$ scaiety says Benandot ; as many sometimes as thirty in a page. I have also consulted the MS. of this Liturgy in the British Museum, No. 16,202. It is, however, of more recent date than tne Roman text.

* This office, which is termed in the Greez the Kedasse, Anaphora, or Canon, is based throughout upon the Jacobite (Coptic} Liturgy of St. Basil. This Coptic office, however, was not written by bt. Basil (Renaudot, Or, Lit., i., 174), but was doubtless in use in the church of Alexandria before the Mohammedan period, under the Christian emperors. Like the other liturgies in that patri- archate, it represents the earliest form of sacramental worship, and is prooably on this account termed by the i£thiopians the Eucharistic " office of our fathers the apostles.'' In the introduction, however, to the MS. 16,202, British Museum, it is called ** the rite of our fathers the Egyptians (Copts).'* From the passages

2uoted in the notes it will be seen that it coincides often and verbally with the liturgy of St. Mark, and to such an extent and in such a manner as seems to B>]nt to a more simple and primitive form of that Liturgy than any now extant, r. Neale says that ** the general form and arrangement of the Liturgy of St. Mark may safely be attributed to the evangelist himself."

' The ^th. translators use the proper word for snow in Psalm cxlviii. 8. But it is scarcely known in Abyssinia. Ludolf 's teacher, the ^th. monk Gregory, when he first saw it, called it meal. Vide ^th. Lex., col. 33.

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. VI. Z

838 jEthwjric Liturgies and Hymns. U^7»

Thou hast prepared a table before me in the sight of those

who hate me.

Thou hast anointed my head with oil ; Thy chalice is strong, and it satiateth.

I will take the chalice of life^ and call upon the name of the Lord.

Thy mercies shall follow me all the days of my life.

O Lord, save ; O Lord, prosper. , Hail I holy Church !

Adorned are its walls and painted with the topae.

Hail then, holy Church 1 the pure golden vessel wherein is laid up the manna, the bread that came down from heaven and giveth life to all the world H

First qf all the Presbyter saith this Prayer for thfi purity of the

Church and of the Altar.' O Lord our God, Thou alone art holy, and on all hast Thou bestowed sanctity by Thy invisible might : O Lord, we ask and beseech Thee to send forth Thy Holy Spirit upon this Church and upon this altar, and upon all their holy utensils whereon Thy venerable mystery is celebrated. Bless us now, and sanctify us and purge us from all impurity and pollution through the remis- sion of the new birth,-^ so that there shall not be left upon us any taint whatever of transgression ; and make this Church and this altar an elect and pure vessel^ like silver purged and purified from the earth, whenever Thy sacrifice is thereon celebrated, O Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and for ever. Amen.

A Prayer before the Altar is vested,^ and before the Holy Vessels

are placed upon it. O Lord God, who knoweth the hearts of all, and abideth holy among the holy,* and art free fipom evil, who alone art able to forgive sins; Thou knowest, O Lord, that I am not pure for this Thy holy ministration, and that I have no boldness' to draw nigh and open my mouth for Thy holy praise. Never- theless in the multitude of Thy mercy do Thou forgive me, a

' In MS. Brit. Muau this clause follows the prayer over the disc (Maaobe), below, p. 840.

« Lit., ark. The altar in the Abyssinian ohurches is boilt in the form of an ark. See Isenberg, Lex. Amhar.y p. 97, 31. Harris, ii., 168. Ludolf, BitL ^th., ill., 6, 62. Oamm., p. 375. The following formnla is pecnliar to the ^thiopic Church, and is not found in the Coptic or Alexandrian office.

/ Thus the text of MS. Brit. Mus. € Utensil.

* The rubric in the MS. Brit. Mus. directs that if a bishop be present, the vestment shall be taken to him for his blessing, p. 26.

' 'O 4v hyiois AMtira^/icyos (St. Mark, p. 15 of Dr. Neale's edition).

J Lit., face.

1863.] ^thiopic Liturgies and Hymns, 339

sinner and transgressor. Orant me to find mercy in this hour, and send down to me Thy strength from on high,* that I may become worthy, and may accomplish Thy holy service. Accord- ing to Thy will and the good pleasure of Thy heart, may this incense be a sweet-smelling savour. Through Jesus Christ be Thou with us, and bless us, for Thou art the forgiver of our sins, and the light of our souls, and our life, and our strength, and refuge. To Thee we send up our praise on high,' for ever and ever. Amen.

A Prayer over the Paten. O Lord our God Jesus Christ, who didst stretch forth Thine hands upon the holy cross, lay Thy hand upon this paten : bless now, sanctify and purify it, that Thy priests may make therein Thy holy Body in this holy apostolic Church. To Thee be praise, with Thy Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Jesus Christ is the Son of Ood. Holy is his name : and Holy is He among the spirits.

A Prayer over the Chalice. O Jesus Christ our God, the True, who though very God didst become man — whose deity was not separated from his humanity — who of his own good pleasure poured forth his blood for his creatures ;** lay thy hand upon this cup ; bless, sanctify, and purify it, that they may make therein Thy holy blood in this holy apostolic Church. To Thee be glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit now and for ever, world without end. Amen.

Purity and blessing and sweetness is to those who drink of Thy precious blood, who art the very True One.

Prayer over the cross-handkd Spoon.* O Lord our God, who didst make Thy servant Isaiah the prophet worthy to behold the seraphim, in whose hand were the tongs wherewith he took a live coal from off the altar and placed it in his mouth ; now therefore, O Lord our God and Father Almighty, lay Thine hand upon this spoon of the cross, that it minister the body and blood of Thine only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ. And now do Thou bless, sanctify, and purify it : give it strength and honour, as Thou gavest to the tongs of the seraphim. For Thine is the glory, together

* AApfiiirai 4iiMf . . . rV <^ fivh^tiev Ktd KQrdxff^ov^ k.tA. (St. Mark, p. 15). ' 26 fiip €l 6 ayuurpu^s ^/iwr, koI crol rV i^ay iiymr4fiToii€y (ot. Mark, p. 15). *■ Thnfl Ed. Rom. and MS. Brit. Mas., Benandot, mal^, super Ool^otha. " Lit., the spoon of the cross. So called because the handle terminates in a small cross. Ladolf, Chmm.j iii., 6, 79.

z2

340 JEthiopic Liturgies and Hymns. [Jtily,

with Thine only Son and with the Holy Spirit, now and for ever, world without end. Amen.

Prayer over the larger DiscJ* O Lord our Ood, who spake unto Moses his servant and prophet, " Make me choice vessels, and place them in my taber- nacle at Mount Sinai,'* — now also, O our Lord God Almighty, put forth Thy hand upon this disc, and fill it with strength and virtue and purity and the grace of the Holy Spirit for Thy glory, that they may make therein the body of Thy only Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, in this holy apostolic Church. To Thee be glory with Thy holy Son, and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Then shall he say as he makes the sign of the Cross, — May the strength and blessing and light and sanctification of the Holy Trinity be on this Church of the city N.

Prayer at the offering.^ O Lord our God, who didst accept the sacrifice of Abel in the field, and of Noah in the ark, and of Abraham on the moun- tain-top, and of Elias on Carmel, and of David on the threshing- floor of Araunah the Jebusite, and the widow's mite in the Temple, receive in like manner the oblation and the sacrifice of Thy servants [Tesfa Zion and Tanase his son] which they have brought unto Thy holy name, that it may be the redemption of Thy people's sins : and do Thou recompense them with a goodly recompence in this world and in the world to come, now and for evermore. Amen.

Prayer at the mixture of the water with wine. O Christ, who art our very God, who didst go, when they bade Thee, to the marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee, and didst bless them, and madest the water into wine, do Thou in like manner unto this wine which is set before me : bless, sanctify, and purify it, that it may be for the joy and the rejoicing and for the life of our souls and of our bodies ; and may Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, beside whom is no God, be with us at all times ; and fill Thou this wine with rejoicing and gladness, for good and life and for salvation, and for understanding and counsel of the Holy Ghost now and for ever, world without end. Amen.*

« The ^th. word is Ma$6b', used in Heb. iz. 4, of the pot in which the manna was preserved. It is here to be understood of the Tessol in which the bread intended for consecration is placed, together probably with the paten.

f X. «., the offering of gifts by the communicants. For Tesfa Zion, see note, p. 843.

♦ After this prayer Renandot inserts, " Benedictns Dominns Dens, Pater Omnipotens, Benedictus Filins, Benedictus Spiritua Paracletus," and a rubric for the elevation of the hands.

1863.] ^thiqpic Liturgies and Hymns. 841

The Priest says/ —

There is one Holy Father, one Holy Son, one Holy Ghost. Praise the Lord all ye nations, and laud him all ye people. For stablished is his mercy upon us, and the righteousness of the Lord endureth for ever. Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

The Deacon says, — Rise up for prayer.

The Priest says, — Peace be with you all.

The People say, — And with thy spirit at all times.

When the Deacon says, " Rise up for prayer,'^ and the Priest, '' Peace be with you all,'' the People say, " Lord have mercy upon us with Thy Spirit."

The Priest says the Prayer of Thanksgiving,

Let us render thanks to the Author of our good things, the merciful Lord, the Father of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, for he hath shielded and aided and kept and taken us under his protection. He hath brought us nigh unto himself, and received us and purified us, and brought us unto this hour. Let us therefore ask of him to keep us this holy day and all the days of our life in all peace, O Thou Lord God Almighty. Pray ye. O Lord God Omnipotent, Father of our Lorid and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, we render thanks unto Thee for every- thing and concerning everything and in everything; for Thou hast protected us and helped us, and kept us and taken us under Thy guardianship. Thou hast brought us nigh unto Thyself, and accepted us and strengthened us, and brought us unto this hour, and therefore do we ask and make our suit to Thy goodness, O Thou lover of men.

The Deacon saith, —

Seek ye, and make supplication that God will have mercy upon us and be gracious unto us, and accept prayers and suppli- cations from his saints on our behalf now and at all times; that he would make us meet to receive and partake of the communi- cation of this blessed mystery, and that he would pardon us sinners.

The People say thrice, " Kyrie Eleison."

The Priest says,' —

' In the MS. Brit. Mas. these sentences are diyided between priest and people.

• Compare ths rituy r^v ayiav rifi^paif to^ttjj' kcU Atokto rhv XP^^^^ t^» i»^» 4\iJMP }nnrf\4<rou , . . /act& ird(rnf . . . koI rov (rod ^ifiov irdsrra H^ <ftB6yoy . . . ircuray 'XetToyuciir ivdpy^iau, Tatrov troyripAy ayOp^uy hrifiovX^y iK^iw^ov &^' ^fmy . . . Ktd iarh rrjs aylas . . . iKKKficrias, Til Ko^jk «cal rh crvfifpipoyra rjfuy iTrixofritYnaov . . . yafik ufffytyKTis Tiftas tls Ttp€urfi6y &AX& po<reu rifias &irb rov woyripov . . . X^*^^ '^^ oitenp/A^ Koi ^tXavOpwrlt^^ k.t.A. (St. Mark, pp. 7, 8).

342 ^ihiopic liturgies and Hymns. [^^Jj

Grant that we may pass this holy day and all the days of our life in all peace conjoined with Thy fear. All the envy and all the wiles and all the workings and the craft of evil men^ and the uprising of the foe^ whether hidden or open^ drive Thou afar and repel from me^ and from all Thy people^ and from this Thy hply place. All good things that are good and exceUent do Thou command for us; for Thou art He who hast given us power to tread upon the serpent and scorpions^ and upon all the power of the foe. And lead us not^ O Lord, into temptation^ but deliver and rescue us from all evil, by the grace and mercy and love for man of Thine only Son^ our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christy through Whom to Thee^ with Him^ and with the Holy Ghost^ be glory and power now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

The Prayer on behalf of those who bring Oblations.

Again let us beseech Almighty God^ the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, on behalf of those who bring offer- ings into this holy catholic Church— oblations, firstfruits, tythes, thank-offerings, commemorations — that of all those who give much or little^ and of those who have the will to give though they give not. He would accept the desires. Who in heaven bestoweth grace on the spirits,' Who hath the power of benedic- tion upon every work, the Lord our God.

The Sub'deacon saith, — Pray on behalf of those who bring the offering.

O Lord God Almighty, we ask and beseech Thee on behalf of those who bring offerings to Thy one holy catholic Church, whether much or little, whether publicly or privately, and that of all those who are willing but have not, Thou wouldest accept the intentions. Give them a recompence, and may theirs be a double blessing through Thy only Son ; through whom to Thee, with Him, and with the Holy Spirit, be glory and power now and for ever, world without end. Amen.

Prayer at the mystical Anaphora. O High Priest, Jesus Christ, of uncreated being, the pure Word of the Father and the Word of the Holy Ghost," Thou

' Bat MS. Brit. Mas., who in the heavens hestoweth hingdome.

* I have followed the reading of the MS. Brit. Mus. Renaudot Biupects that the text is corrupt. And with reason; as the CdpL lAL Bat, has JSon^ conavbttantial toith the Father and the Holy Ohoft^ €md coetemal with both,

St. Mark has, A4ffTora lri<rov Xpt<rrh, K6pt€, 6 ir^vapx^^ A6yos rov iar^pxov varphs ica} tow Jiy. Uyt^fueros . . » 6 ipros 6 in rov ohpwov Karckfiiis . . . Mft»oy rh •Kp6trww6v (Tov hrX rhv Aproy rovroy ica2 M ri ToHipuL reuha i ^ Toywyia rpdircCa HoB4xrrai9t* iyytkikiis Xurovpylas (pp. 16, 17). The Roman text ia, Son of the Father ana of the Holy Ohoet.

1863.] jSthiopic lAiwgies and Hymns. 84f8

art the bread of life which earnest down from the heavens^ and wast from of old even as a pure lamb without spot for the life of the world ; we ask now and beseech of Thy excellent goodness^ O Thou lover of men, shew the light of Thy countenance upon this bread and upon this cup which we place upon this Thy spiritual altar. Bless them^ sanctify them, and purify them : and change this bread so that it may become Thy pure body, and that which is commingled in this cup, become Thy precious blood j and that it may ascend for healing,* to the salvation of all our souls and of our bodies. For Thou art the King of us all, Christ our Grod : and to Thee we send up on high, laud and glory and adoration, with Thy good heavenly Father and Thy Holy Spirit, the Giver of life, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

The Deacon saiih, — Worship Grod with fear.

And the People answer, — Before Thee, O Lord, we adore ; and Thee do we glorify.

The Priest then pronounces the Absolution of the Son.

O Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son, Word of Ood the Father, who hast broken off from us all the bonds of our sins by his saving and life-giving passion ; who breathed upon his holy dis- ciples and pure ministers, saying, B^ceive ye the Holy Ghost : whose sins ye remit they shall be remitted, and whose sins ye retain they shall be retained. Thou, O Lord, through Thy pure ministers, hast given grace to the priesthood to do in like manner in Thy holy Church, and at all times remit sins upon earth, and bind and loosen all the bonds of iniquity : now there- fore do we again ask and beseech of Thy goodness, O Thou lover of men, on behalf of these Thy servants, my fathers and my brethren, and on behalf of myself Thy servant, Tesfa Zion,*' and on behalf of those who bow their heads before Thy holy altar, make plain for us the path of Thy mercy, and break asunder and dissever* all the bonds of our sins : whether we have sinned against Thee, O Lord, knowingly or without know- ledge ; in malice of heart or by deceit ; or in conversation or through meanness of heart ; for Thou, O Lord, knowest the infirmity of man, O Thou good and lover of the human race and Lord of all, confer on us remission of our sins. Bless us and sanctify us ; make us a sweet-smelling savour, and make us to be absolved. Absolve, O Lord, our patriarch, Abba N ; and

' Lit., that it may betotuaUan aaeender of healing.

* The priest who superintended the printing of this Litursy ftt Borne in 1546. In the MS. Brit. Mas. is the name of the priest to whom that MS. belonged, yiz., Area SeUts^ i. e., Jriend or votary of the Trinity »

' Lit., cul.

844 jSthiopic LUurgies and Hymns. \?^Yf

our holy and blessed bishop^ Abba N ; absolve, O Lord^ our king N ; remember, O Lord, the souls of thy servants^ our father Abba Matthew and the other fathers; Abba Salama^ Abba James, and Abba Bartholomew, and Abba Michael, and Abba Isaac, and Abba John, and Abba Mark. Remember, O Lord, the kings of ^Ethiopia, Abraha and Atzeba,^ Caleb,' Gabra Maskal, Constautine, Fressenai,* D^ana Michael, Nawai Christos, Yagebe Zion, Amda Zion, David, Theodorus,* Isaac/ Andrew, Amda Jesus, Zara Jacobus, Baeda Mariam,^ Alexan- der,' Amda Zion,/ Naod,^ Lebna Denghel.* Absolve, O Lord, our fathers Abba Antonius and Abba Macarius. Remember, O Lord, the soul of Thy servant, our father Tecla Haimanoth with all his sons ; remember, O Lord, our father Eustathius and all his sons ; and remember all Thy people ; and fill us with the fear of Thy name, and stablish us to do Thy will. For to Thee is due glory and praise, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

And may Thy servants who minister this day, the presbyter and deacon and clergy and people, and myself. Thy poor servant, a sinner and offender, be absolved by the mouth of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and by the mouth of our Lady Mary, a second heaven, a venerable loom ; and by the mouth of this holy catholic and apostolic Church ; and by the mouth of the five prophets, and the twelve sons of the prophets ; and by the mouth of the twelve apostles and the seventy-two disciples and their five hundred companions ; and by the mouth of Mark the theologian' and evangelist, apostle and martyr; and by the mouth of the holy patriarch Severus,^' and holy Antonius, and holy John of the golden mouth, and holy Cyril,

9 Gotemporary probably with 8t Atbanasias and Framentias. See Lud., Hist, jEih., ii., 4, 9.

' Caleb, cotemporaiy with the Roman emperor Justin a.d. 522. Hia sac- ceasor was Gabra Maskal, i. «., servant of the cross.

• Fressenai, t.«., good fruit. * See Lud., Bist jEihum,, ii., 6, 4.

• Probably the Isaao whose name occurs in p. 284 of the MS. Octateuch (described in the ** Correspondence " of the present number of this Journal}, sent by him to the Abyssinians in Jerusalem. He was king in 1350, or thereabouts.

' Son of Zara Jacobus, born about 1465, and grandson of Amda (Pillar) Jesus. ' Seigned 1475 — 1490.

/ Died 1419, after a reign of six months. r Died 1504.

* ». «, Storaz Yirffinis, one of the baptismal names of David, who reigned from 1504—1540. The above names are aU omitted in the MS. Brit. Mus.

* Tov MaffTvpa icol tbayytXurrriy MapKoy (St. Mark, p. 13). AvoaroKov kp^ Ei;ary«Ai(rrov (ibid., p. 21). Divina loquenHs. Benaudot, p. 506. ITMogui. Dillm.

J Patriarch of Alexandria and defender of the Jacobite opinions. He is commemorated in the iEthiopic Kalendar on Feb. 14. After Sevenu the MB. Brit. Mas. inserts the name of Dioscurus, but omits AntonitUj and for C^nt, reads Kirkos. John of the Golden Mouth is, of course, Chrysostom.

1863.] JEihiopic Liturgies and Hymns. 345

and holy Oregorios^ and holy Basils and by the mouth of the three hundred and eighteen orthodox who were assembled at Nice, and the hundred and fifty at Constantinople, and the two hundred at Ephesus, and by the mouth of our patriarch Abba Gabriel/ and by the mouth of our bishop Abba N, and by my month, who am a miserable sinner. May they be absolved by the mouth of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for full is Thy name of majesty aud glory, now and ever, world without end. Amen.'

The Priest (Cohen) says the Prayer of the Incense.^

Here the Presbyter waves the Incense, making mention of the new moons and festival days, commemorating also the dead and the living, saying as he waves the Incense, —

Blessed be the Father Almighty, and blessed be the only- begotten Son Jesus Christ, who was made man of the holy Virgin Mary ; and blessed be the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, our God the Strengthener. This sweet savour is due to the Holy Trinity, our God.

And when the Priest censes the throng he says, — Hallelujah to the Father, hallelujah to the Son, hallelujah to the Holy Ghost, now and ever, and world without end. Amen. O eternal God, the first and the last, without beginning and without end, who art great in skill, and mighty in operation, and wise in counsel, and present in all things f we ask and beseech of Thee, O Lord, to be with us at this hour, and shew the light of Thy countenance upon us, and abide with us in our midst, and purify our hearts and sanctify our souls, and blot out our ofiences, and foi^ve our sins which we have committed, in wilfulness or in- voluntarily, and make us to offer unto Thee a reasonable obla- tion, and the sacrifice of praise and spiritual incense which we may bring up into^ the holy temple of the saints.

^ The patriarch of Alexandria. Cotemporanr with the Area Sel^s mentioned ahove, ana whose name occure at this point of the Liturgy, was John. There were several patriarchs of this name (viae Renaudot, de PcSr. Alex., pp. 402, 396). Bnt the MS. may be of the period of the last of these mentioned at p. 400. It has no marks of pecnliar antiquity.

' The MS. Bnt. Mus. here inserts a litany, rubrics, and prayers in reference to the incense, but ends with the threefold Hallelujah.

*" The prayer at the benediction of the incense and at the censing of the altar follow in the Roman ritual immediately upon the mixture of the wme with water.

" The manbar, the space between the altar and the east wall of the Church, reserred for the officiating bishop and priests. In the MS. Brit. Mus. the priest (▼. p. 45) makes the circuit of the altar, singing a hymn commemoratiye of the resurrection.

• MS. Brit. Mus., who wast in all things, and wilt be with all things,

p MS. Brit. Mus., ihe veU of.

346 JEihiopie LUurgies and Hymns. [Joly*

Remember^ O Lord^ the one holy catholic and apostolic Churchy which is from one end of the world unto the other.

Remember^ O Lord^ our patriarch Abba N and onr holy and blessed bishop^ Abba N^^ and all our patriarchs, bishops^ pres- byters, and deacons.

Bemember, O Lord, our king N.

Elemember, O Lord, our fathers and brethren who have fallen on sleep, and do rest in the orthodox faith.

Remember, O Lord, our congregations, and bless them ever- more.

Here the Priest says, — "Let us worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one Trinity,^^ thrice^ and the people in like manner.

Priest, — Peace be with thee, holy Christian Church, abode of peace. Peace be with thee, O Virgin Mary, mother of Ood f thou art the golden censer which didst bear the coal of living fire. Blessed he who receiveth out of the sanctuary Him who forgiveth sins and blotteth out transgression, even God the Word, who took flesh of thee, who offered himself to his Father as incense and a precious sacrifice : we adore thee, O Christ, with Thy good Father, and the Holy Ghost the giver of life, for Thou dost come and save us.

Then the Priest makes the circuit of the Church^ thrice, cens- ing it. The assistant Priest says before Paul is read, —

O Lord, who knowest and announcest wisdom ; who hast revealed to us that which was hidden in the depths of darkness ; and art the giver of the word of joy to those who proclaim the greatness of Thy might ; it is Thou who in the abundance of Thy goodness didst call Paul, who was before a persecutor, and madest him an elect vessel, and in Thy good pleasure to become an apostle and preacher of the Gospel of Thy kingdom and an herald ; O Christ our God, we ask and beseech of Thee who art the benign lover of men, bestow upon us the understanding of wisdom and incorruptible knowledge, that we may understand and know Thy Holy Scriptures which are read in Thy presence; and as he was made like unto Thee, even Thine image, the image of life, so make Thou us meet to be conformed to him and to walk in his ways, and to praise Thy holy name, and to make our boast in Thy precious cross evermore, for Thine is the

* ' hyiArorov iroi /JuucapUharov hpxi^ia vut&v Tteariof A ical rhw 6fft/ArvTO¥ ET(tfirovoy A (St. Mark, p. 9, etc.).

*' MS. Brit. Mas., Fray for ns, Virgin Mary, mother of God. Thoa art the ffolden censer which didst hear the hlessed coal of fire which he (the angel) too^ from the sanctuary, which forgiveth, etc.

' In the OopL lAt, Ba$., the dUar. Thus MS. Brit. Mos.

186S.] ^Uapic LUwrgki and HymM. 347

kingdom^ the majesty^ and might and doQiiiiion, glory and praise, for ever and ever. Amen.

The Deacon $ays, brfore Paul U read, —

From Faul^ servant and apostle of onr Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who was called and deoted and set apart for the preach- ing of the Holy Gospel. Worthy of faith is his word from the epistle N. May his prayer and blessing be with us. Amen.

And after the lection from Paul, the Deacon says, —

The grace of God the Father, and the gift of his Son, and the bestowment of the Holy Ghost, who came down upon the blessed and pure apostles in the holy temple of Zion, be multi- plied upon us all Christian people for ever and ever. Amen.

Holy Paul I apostle ! kind messenger ! healer of the sick I thou hast received the crown ! pray and intercede for us, that our souls may be saved in the multitude of his mercy, for his holy name sake.

The Priest says, —

Peace be with you all. O eternal God, the first and the last, without beginning and end, great in skill and mighty in operation and wise in counsel, who existed in all things, we ask and beseech of Thee, O Lord, that Thou wouldest be with us in this hour, and lift up the light of Thy countenance upon us, and abide with us in our midst, and purify our hearts and sanctify our souls, and blot out our offences, and pardon our sins, which we have committed with or without our consent, knowingly or in our ignorance, and cause us to offer unto Thee a pure offer- ing, and that a reasonable sacrifice and spiritual incense may enter into the holy temple of Thy sanctity through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom, to Thee, with Him, and with the Holy Ghost, be praise and dominion now and ever, world without end. Amen.

The assistant Deacon says before an apostle is read, — This is the word from the epistle of N, disciple and apostle of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. May his prayer and blessing be with us. Amen.

And after the apostle is read the Deacon shall say, — O bre- thren, love not the world, neither the things that are in the world : for all that is in the world, the lust of the eye, and the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life are not of the Father, but are of the world. And the world passeth away and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the wiU of God abideth for ever.

The People say, — Holy Trinity, One in Thine essence, pre- serve our congregation : for the sake of Thy holy elect disciples, comfort us by Thy mercy, for Thy holy name sake.

The Deacon says, — Rise up for prayer.

848 JEthiopic IMurgies and Hymns. [ July^

The Priest says, — Peace be with you all.

The PeopUy — And with thy spirit.

Priest J — O our Lord and God, who didst reveal to Thy holy apostles the mystery of the glory of Thy Christ, and didst give them the great and countless gifts of Thy grace, and didst send them to preach in all quarters of the world the riches of Thy grace and of Thine inscrutable mercy : we therefore, O Lord, ask and beseech of Thee to make us worthy of their heritage and their portion, that we may walk in their ways and follow in their steps ; and give us grace at all times to be conformed unto them, and to be strong in their love, and that we may have a portion with them in the reward of their labours, through sin- cere religion. And do Thou preserve Thy holy Church which Thou hast founded through them, and bless the sheep of Thy pasture, and increase this vineyard which Thou hast planted with Thy holy right hand, through Jesus Christ our Lord, by Whom, to Thee, with Him and with the Holy Spirit, be glory and power, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

The Priest then offers the Incense and says, —

O Lord our God, who didst receive the sacrifice of our father Abraham in place of Isaac his son, and didst send down to him a lamb as his ransom ; in like manner, O Lord, accept from me the sweet savour of this incense, and send down in return for it^ from on high the riches of Thy grace and mercy, and make us pure from all the pollution of sin, that we may minister before Thy purity, O thou lover of men, in purity and righte- ousness all the days of our lives, with joy.

And he again says. Remember, etc.. Rejoice, etc.

Then the Priest says before the Acts are read, —

The Acts of the Sent ones — the message of our fathers the apostles, pure and full of grace, elect and righteous and blessed, through the grace of the Holy Spirit. May their prayers and blessing preserve all us Christian people, for ever and ever. Amen.

And again after reading the Acts, the Priest says, —

Great is the word of God, and on the Church of Christ is it engrafted. Multiplied are the peoples who believe on our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be praise for ever and ever. Amen.

Holy, holy, holy art Thou God the Father Almighty.

Holy, holy, holy art Thou the only Son, living Word of the Father.

Holy, holy, holy art Thou, Holy Ghost who knowest all things.

' Bufuatut vpoff9^afjL€¥os . . . am Kara ir€fv^ iifup nir x<V<^ '''^^ «yu»v <rov fiaros (St. Mark, p. 12).

1863.] jEthiopic LUurgtea and Hymns, 349

The Deacon saith, — Arise for prayer.

The Priest saith, — The peace of God be with you all.

People, — And with thy spirit.

The Priest says, — O Lonl Jeans Christ our God^ who didst say to Thy holy disciples and to Thy pure apostles. Many pro- phets and righteous men have desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them, and have desired to hear the things which ye hear, and have not heard them ; and blessed are your eyes which have seen and your ears which have heard ; in like manner do Thou make us also worthy to hearken and to per- form the word of Thy holy Gospel" through the prayers of Thy saints.

The Deacon says, — Pray at the holy Gospel.

Before the Gospel is read he says,

I will bless the Lord at all times ; bis praise shall ever be in my mouth. My soul shall make her boast in the Lord. Hal- lelujah. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. Stand up. Hear ye the holy Gospel, that which our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ announceth.

The Priest says, — This is the time of our prayer and suppli- cation wherewith we make suit of Thee, O Lord our God, for those who have fallen asleep before us. Give them rest and heal their sicknesses ; for Thou art the life of us all, and the hope of us all, and the deliverer of us all, and to Thee we send up praise on high for ever and ever. Amen.

The Priest having said this, turns his face to the People and says, —

O Lord on high, bless us all/ a Christian people ; and make our entrance into this holy Church to be in unison with the holy angels, who serve him evermore, and glorify him at all times, world without end. Amen.

ITie Priest thrice censes the Gospel,^ and announcing it to the People says, — ^The holy Gospel which N preached or announced — the Word of the Son of God.

And the People say, — Glory be to Thee, O Christ, our Lord and God at all times. Be ye glad, and rejoice in God who hath helped us, and sing unto the God pf Jacob ; take the psalm, and strike the timbrel; the sweet psalm with the harp.

And after the Gospel is read* the People say,^ — The che- rubim and seraphim offer up praise to Him, saying, Holy, holy,

" 'AjcpooTJkf iiiMS itoiri<rg rov ayiov aibrov EvcryycXtov (St. Mark, p. 12). ' 'O muplos tbKoy^oTp koI (rMuucoi^<rp iiytly, K.r.\. (St. Mark, p. 12). * *0 'Icpcbs irph rov Evapyyt?dou /9<i\A.ci Buftiofia (St. Mark, p. 12). ' The MS. Brit. Mas. here inserts a Litany, and passages from the gospels oontaiiiing the words of Institntion, and part of John yi. ' Kal i^oX\owrt rhy x*povfiuc6tt (St. Mark, p. 14).

360 JEthiopic Liturgies and Hymns, ^ [Jvily>

holy. The heavens and the earth are full of the sanctity of Thy glory.

The Deacon says, — Rise up for prayer.

7%6 Priest says, — Peace be with you all.' Again we beseech Almighty G-od^ the Father of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ — we ask and make suit of Thy goodness^ O Thou lover of men. Remember^ O Lord^ the peace of Thy one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The Deacon says, — Pray for this one holy catholic and apos- tolic Churchy orthodox in God.

The People say, — O Lord our Otoi, give us peace. Christ our King have mercy on us.

The Priest says, — Which is from one end of the world unto the other. 'Bless all Thy people and all Thy flock. Send peace from heaven upon all our sonls^ and^ while we live^ vouchsafe us peace. Be gracious unto our king Claudius^ his nobles^ his judges^ and his armies^ and the assembly of our neighbours without and within :* adorn them with all peace, O Thou ELing of peace. Give us peace, for Thou givest us all things. Take us as Thy possession, O God, for beside Thee we acknowledge no other. We make mention of and call on Thy holy name, that our souls may live in the Holy Spirit, and that the death of sin may not prevail* against us Thy servants and all Thy people.

Prayer for the Bishops.

Let us again beseech of Almighty God, the Father of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. We ask and make our suit at Thy goodness, O Thou lover of men. Remember, O Lord, our venerable Father, the patriarch Abba Gabriel, and our holy and blessed metropolitan Abba N.

TTie Deacon says, — Pray for our ponti£Es, for our patriarch Abba N, the lord archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and our venerable metropolitan Abba N, and all bishops, priests, and deacons, orthodox in the faith.

7%c Priest says, — Do Thou preserve them to us many years and for length of days in righteousness and in peace, that they may accomplish the sacred ministration wherewith Thou hast entrusted them in the office of the priesthood according to Thy holy and blessed will, that they may judge in righteousness and truth, and feed Thy people in righteousness — all bishops, pres- byters, and deacons orthodox in the faith, and all alike of Thy

• The MS. Brit. Kas. has here a long Litany to the Virgin, after which it continnes, Holy ia God, holy the Stinmg, h^ly the Umng One, tAo dieik noi, ete.

• VnlgiiB promiBouum (Oopt.)

• KaXfiii Kwrl<rx}Mr^ Bdifwros ofutfrita tuff i|mdr /ci|S^ Kwrh «wr^ rov Xmgv 09B (St. Mark, p. 14).

1868.] ^thiopic IMurgies and Hymns. 851

one holy catholic and apostolic Chnrch. And do Thou receive the prayers which they make on our behalf^ and on behalf of all Thy people, upon Thine altar on high, for a sweet-smeUing savour : all their enemies and foes do Thou subdue and break to pieces beneath their feet speedily, and preserve them to us in righteousness and peace in Thy holy Church.

A Prayer for the Conffregation,'

Let us again beseech Almighty God, the Father of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. We ask and seek of Thy goodness, O Thou lover of men : remember, O Lord, our con- gregations and bless them.

The Deacon says, — Pray for this holy Christian Church and our congregation therein.

And the People say, — Bless and preserve our congregation in peace.

And then they say, — We believe.

TT^en the Deacon says, — In the wisdom of God say the Prayer of Faith, singing :'

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of the visible and the invisible.

And we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of the Father, who existed with him before the world was made ; Light from Light, God from very God, begotten and not made, equal with the Father in his Godhead, by whom all things were made, and without whom was not anything made in heaven and earth : who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the holy Virgin Mary. He was made man, and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate : he suffered and died and was buried, and rose firom the dead on the third day, as was written in the Holy Scriptures : he ascended with glory into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of his Father : he shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

And we believe in the Holy Ghost, Lord and Lifegiver, who proceedeth from the Father.' We worship him and glorify him with the Father and the Son, who spake by the prophets.

And we believe in one holy catholic-^ and apostolic Church :

* T^ kwurwwYvrfhs (St. Mark, p. 14).

' In the Litany of St. Mark the Creed foUows the Salutation, p. 16.

' The words, and the Son, were foisted into the text in the edition printed at Rome in 1548, hat are not fonnd in any ^th. MSS. Vide Lad. Oomrn,, p. 353.

/ The ^th. translators vary in their rendiering of itaSoKucitP xtA iarotrroKueiiw 4tac\iia'Uaf. The more general version is, Ohritdan CSbureh of one eongregation, which (U that) of the 4tpodle8, Here it is, Otis holy OhrMan Church, nduch ic above all congregatUnUy which fie thaitj of the apoeUee,

352 jEihiopic Liturgies and Hymns. [J^7>

and we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins : and we hope for a resurrection of the dead^ and the life which shall come for ever. Amen.

27ie Priest says, — Make them [the congr^ation] to be de- voted to Thee^ without hindrance^ and that without ceasing they may do Thy holy and blessed will. Do Thou vouchsafe, O Lord^ to us Thy servants^ and to those who shall come after us^ for ever, a house of prayer/ a house of purity, a house of blessing. Arise, O Lord our God, and let Thine enemies be scattered, and let aU those who hate Thy holy and blessed name flee before Thy face, and let Thy people be blessed a thousand thousand- fold and ten thousand ten thousand-fold,^ that they may do all Thy will, through the grace and mercy and love for man of Thy only Son our Lord and Ood and Saviour Jesus Christ, through whom, to Thee, with Him and with the Holy Ghost, be glory and power now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

The Priest says the Prayer for Perfect Peace, —

O God, great, eternal, who didst form man free from corrup- tion, but hast now brought to nought the power of death which came first into the world by the envy of Satan, through the coming of thy only Son our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and by Thy peace,> wherein the hosts of heaven do praise Thee, saying. Glory to God in heaven, and peace on earth — his goodwill to man.

The Deacon says, — Pray for perfect peace and the love of the apostolic salutation,^ Ghreet one another. Ye who do not com- municate, go forth. Te who communicate, salute one another in the fulness of your hearts. Let him who purposes to com- municate keep himself free from evil.'

Priest, — O Lord, of Thy good pleasure fill our hearts with Thy peace, and purify us from all pollution, and from all im- purity, and from all revenge, and envy, and the remembrance of evil which is clad with death. O Lord, make us all meet to salute one another with a holy kiss, and that we may receive without condemnation, and not unto death, of Thy heavenly gift, who with the Holy Ghost, etc.

[To be continued].

r Lit., let them be to thee. The Coptic has, nobis ut ea$ eelebremue,

^ OUoht w^x^i obtoht c^AoyiW (St. Mark, p. 14).

' MvpidKts (St. Mark). Tbr 8i Xahp <rob rhv irt^rhv kcSL hpB^Hoiw ^Xiyi^wr woiyi<ro¥ airrhv c2r x^^^'^'^^ *^^ fiupiaHas (St. Mark, p. 14).

> The Coptic and Renaudot's text, And hast filled the earth tnth 1%^ peace.

* 'O AtoKovos. Aerwd4rtbff$€ iXk^\ovs,

' *0 Itpmt, Edx^Ttu rhp iurwavftJ^ . . • 8ir«» 4p itaBeipa KOfii^ KtA 4niy«iS9«'ci iurmff^Ba &AA^Aovf hf ^^/lori &y(y (St. Mark, p. 14).

1863.] ( 363 )

nrSFIEATION.* Bt Db. Tholuck.

The Greek word for this idea OeoTTpevaro^ (2 Tim. iii. 16), indi- cates a divine influence exercised upon the understanding. ^' No one was ever a great man without a certain divine aflatus/' says Cicero {'' Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino, unquam fuit/' Pro Archia, 8.) " Breath of God '' is the sensible ex- pression for his " power " or " influence/^ as in the language of Luke, " The power of the Highest " for the Holy Ghost (Luke i. 35 ; xxiv. 49). In this sense it is that the classical writers speak of a "divinely-inspired wisdom'' (Phocylides, verse 121), and of " divinely-inspired dreams " (Plui, de Flac. Phil., v. 2) ; with which, compare 2 Peter i. 21, " Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The neuter becomes a verbal, " Gt>d inspiring,'' as Ocottvoo^ {Porphy. de Antro., p. 116), used by Nonnus {Paraph. Ev. Joh., i. 27), and applied to Scripture by Origen {Horn. xxi. in Jerem., torn, ii., De la Rue). ''The sacred volumes breathe the fulness of the Spirit," — Sacra Yolnmina spiritus plenitudinem spirant.

A psychological definition of the relation of this divinely- effected, and consequently passive knowledge, to the spontaneous action of man, is given by Plato, in his doctrine of the divine fuwia or frenzy {hdeof; eli/ot) . This condition is the germ of that divinely-implanted impulse to knowledge {Erkenntnissiriebes), which has not yet arrived at perfect consciousness {Zeller. Griech. PhU., ii. 166, 275 ; Brandis, ii. 428). Out of this, in as £Eir as it seizes the idea in the form of the beautiful, the artist and the good poet express themselves : " Not by art do they utter these fine poems, but as divinely-inspired and possessed" — €v0€oi and tcarexpfievot {Ion., p. 533) : " for not by art do they say these things, but by a divine power" (ti., p. 534). From the same source proceeds the fuam/ci^ (predictive), which then re- quires the irpo^vq^i (prophet) as an interpreter {TinuBus, 72). The teaching of Plato has exercised an essential and real influence on the Jewish and Christian doctrine of inspiration. It was

' The accompanjing article on a sabject of great interest at the present time, has been translated from Herzog's lie<d-Bncyklopddie fUr Protestantitche Theolome nnd Kirche, toI. vi., pp. 692 — 699. A number of Greek and Latin quotations which Dr. Tholnck cites in their original form have been rendered into English for the convenience of the reader. The references to these pas- sages are those given by the author ; when it has seemed necessary, in order to exhibit the fall force of the originals, the actual words have heen retained alongside of the translatioo.

A A

854 Inspiration. [J^7>

adopted by Philo^ and divine and human knowledge were placed by him in a contrast which made them exclnsive of each other : " When the divine light kindles and shines^ the human light sets, and when that sets, this arises and springs up/' fQuis rerum divin. hares, torn, i., 511, Mang.). Yet this divine influence is not confined by him exclusively to the sacred writings ; he has no hesitation in ascribing to himself at times a ^' being divinely apprehended'' — OeoKviwreiaOcu {De Cherub., i., 148). By the Greek Fathers, Inspiration is represented as an altogether passive condition. Thus, Justin [Cohort,, 8) says : " For it was impos- sible for men to know such great and divine things by means of human nature or perception, but [it was] by means of the gift which came down from above upon the holy men at that time, who needed not art for their utterances, but the leading of a pure life through the energy of the divine Spirit : that the divine heaven-descended instrument acting upon good men, as upon the strings of a harp or lyre, might reveal to us the knowledge of divine things." So also Athenagoras (in Legat.) : " I deem you not to be ignorant of Moses, or of Isaiah and the other prophets ; they expressed what was in them as an echo of thoughts inspired ecstatically by the divine Spirit, which used them as a flute- player does the flute into which he breathes." In conformity with this, the notion of a verbal inspiration was soon received. Thus Ireu8eus (iii., xvi., 2) : " Matthew might have said, ' the generation of Jesus was thus.' But the Holy Spirit, guarding against corruptors and their craft, says by Matthew, ' the gene- ration of Christ was thus.' " And Clement [Cohort,, i., 71, Ed. Pott), " Out of which writings or letters, f^pififiara (he is refer- ring to the ' Holy Scriptures,' 2 Tim. iii. 14), and syllables, the Scriptures being composed, are by the same apostle termed ' divinely inspired.' " And Origen (tom. ii., Horn. 21 in Jer.), "According to expressions of this sort, it becomes us to believe that the sacred letters do not contain a single point void of the wisdom of God !" But still such expressions refer rather to a general religious impression than to a fixed dogma on the subject. Whence we find in the Ante-Nicene Fathers a recc^nition of even heathen writings, as the Sibylline (Theoph., Ad Autol., ii. 9), and views which exclude at least an inspiration pervading the whole of Scripture. Of the origin of St. Mark's Gospel, John Presbyter speaks in terms very similar to Luke (i. 1 — 3). " He was the interpreter of Peter, and wrote out carefully all that be could call to memory of his, without restricting himself to any order in narrating the words and deeds^of Christ " (Euseb., Hist. Eccles,, iii. 39). So also Irenaeus (at the end of the second cen- tury) could not have formed such a conception of Paul as that

1863.] Inspiration. 855

the contents of his writings had been imparted to him as to a passive instrument. He wrote a work ^^ on the peculiarities of the Pauline style/' in which he recognizes the unsyntactic cha- racter of the Apostle's language, and derives it from the ^^ veh^ citas sermonum suorum ei propter impetum, quiipsi est, spiritus" QUesLTiABr^^ Kirchengesch, i. % p. 1172, second edition). For Origen, consult Redepenning (Origenes, i. p. 261/). Although Origen is convinced of the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures even to the Uffra and the xepala, he assumes, nevertheless, a difiPerent measure of the Spirit in Jesus and in his apostles. Thus (Horn, in Luc. xxix. tom. iii. p. 966, £d. De la Rue), ''in the same man- ner both Jesus and Paul were full of the Holy Spirit, but the vessel of Paul was much less than the vessel of Jesus, and yet each of them was full according to its measure.'' He maintains against the Jews that Jesus was more worthy of credit than the prophets (c. Celsus, i., tom. i., p. 360), and than Moses {Und,, p. 337) ; he finds in the Epistle to the Romans a confused and heavy style of composition fAd Romanos, x., tom. iv., p. 678), and solecisms in John (PhilocaL, tom. iv., p. 93) : '' Whoever interprets the word to himself, and what is recorded, and the actions to which the records belong, will not stumble at the solecism of the words, if on inquiry he shall find the actions, to which the words correspond, true." He says on John (tom. iv., p. 183), that according to the historical sense, in respect to the last Passover, there is an irreconcilable contradiction between John and Matthew. *' 1 believe it to be impossible for those who only regard the external history to shew how this apparent con- tradiction can be harmonized." The cause of such an inconsis- tency was not only the want of a systematic foundation of science, but also the influence of Jewish views on inspiration. The Old Testament only spoke of an '' operation of the Holy Ghost " upon the holy men of Ood — an idea which by no means excluded a degree of independence in those giving their utterances, and yet was sufficiently wide to admit of various degrees of inspira- tion. Even Pbilo {De vitd Mosis, i. iii., tom. ii. 163, Ed. Mang.) assumes different degrees of inspiration. " I will speak of what is more peculiar, first observing this : for some of the oracles are uttered from the presence of Ood by interpretation of the divine prophet; others were delivered from question and answer; others again from divine information given to Moses and re- served by him." According to Clement (Recogn., i. 68, 69) the prophets could prove their veraciousness only through an agree- ment with the Pentateuch. The later Jewish writers make the same distinction as Philo : Kimchi, Preface to the Psalms ; Abarbanel, Preface to the greater prophets (f. 3, col. 2) ; More

A a2

356 Inspiration, U^Jj

Nevochim (p. ii., c. 45) ; Porta Mosis 0pp. Pocock (i. 65) . " This book/^ says Kirachi, of the Psahocis^ '' is not inspired through the n^ mi, but through the wHpn rm. Prophecy comes during periods of sleep or of waking, while the mental faculties listen, and the soul, withdrawn from all the things of this world, either sees images, or without them perceives a voice ; the Holy Spirit rules where the man finds himself quite in his accustomed condition, but the Spirit of the Most High it is which is moving him, beaming through him, and inspiring him with words/'

The highest grade is there assigned to Moses, who speaks ner^ HB with God. But the " Mantic '^ theory was transferred in its whole extent to prophecy, by Montanus, in whose method we find Tertull. (c. Marc. iv. 22) thus writing: " Not knowing what he said (Luc. ix. 35). How not knowing? is this to be consi- dered error or ^ecstacy of grace,' i.e., 'madness'? for man, when placed in the spirit, especiaUy when he beholds the glory of God, or when God speaks through him, of necessity takes leave of his faculties, as being overshadowed by the divine virtue. And this is what is a matter of dispute between ns and the psychics."

The contradicting opposite view was now reigning in the Church in opposition to this heresy with reference to prophecy (Chrys., Horn, 29 in Ep. ad CorJ, " For this is the property of the fjuavTi^y to go into a trance, to undergo necessity, to be haled, drawn, dragged about like a mad person. Not so the 7rpo<f»]Tff^, who says everything with watchful perceptions and a disposition of sobriety, knowing what he is uttering."

Although the human element could not thus be divorced from Holy Writ, yet in the judgment given respecting its infal- libility, we find the same vacillation as formerly. On the one side Augustine, Ad Hieron., Ep, 19, declares: "If ever I find anything in those Scriptures which seems to be contrary to truth, I feel at once convinced that either the MS. is faulty, or that the translator is mistaken, or that I have not at all under- stood them " (p. 694) . Again, speaking of John : '^ I make bold to say, that perhaps John himself spoke not as it is, but as he could, because as man he spoke of God. Indeed he was inspired by God, but, nevertheless, only a man. He said something be- cause he was inspired ; had he not been inspired he would have said nothing" {De Cons. Evv., ii. 28). "By these varying but not contradictory sayings of the Evangelists, we learn that we ought to consider merely the intention, not the language of each of them, which is subservient to the intention ; and let not wretched word-hunters suppose that truth is tied down to the points, as it were, of letters, since not only in the case of words.

1868.] Inspiration. 857

but in all the other oatward expressions of the mind^ the mind itself is what we have to investigate/'

Augustine also says that the evangelists have severally given their accounts in a more or less detailed manner, " ut quisque (evangelistarum) meminerat et ut cuique cordi eraf (De Consensu Evangelist., 2^ 12). As it is the accurate grammatioo-historic in- terpretation of Scripture, which comes into special conflict with a verbal inspiration, so we find, above all, in Jerome the learned exegete, characteristics of the difference of style among the Scrip- ture writers. He says, in his preface to Isaiah, " You must know that he is eloquent in his language, as being a noble man, and a man of urbane elegance, with no admixture of rusticity .'' In bis preface to Jeremiah, '^ In his language he seems among the Hebrews more rustic than Isaiah and Hosea.^' He says of Paul {Ad GaL, iii. 1), that he makes use of sermones trivii, Chrysostom, who had expressed his confidence in Scripture, and declared that all the enantiophonies (contradictions) in the Gospels were really only enaniiophanies (apparent contradictions) {Op., torn, vii., p. 5 f.), has nevertheless permitted himself to remark of the words of Paul (Acts xxvi. 6), " He speaks humanly, and is not always under the influence of grace, but it is per- mitted to him to mingle his own also'' {Op., tom. x., p. 864). " One ought not to wonder," remarks Euthymius Zigabenus (after 1118) Ad Matt., xxiv. 28, "if the evangelists did not report evervthing in like fashion, for they had not reduced things to writing immediately from the mouth of Christ, and miffht also have forgotten much.^'

No dogma on the subject of inspiration was yet framed among the scholastics, but Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between what belonged to faith principaliter, and what indirecte only. "Anything has a twofold reference to faith. In one way it belongs to it directly and principally, like the articles of faith ; in another way indirectly and secondarily, as in cases where a denial involves a corruption of one of those articles" fSumma TheoL, ii. 2, qu. i., art. 6; qu. ii., art. 2). Of the latter kind he considers historical notices, as that Abraham had two sons, that a dead man, by touching Elisha's bones, was restored to life again (2 Kings xiii. 21). But in the midst of this, there appear views of a very free character. In the ninth century, Archbishop Ago- hard, of Lyons, thus writes, Adv. Fredegisum, cap. 12 : " Now, if you suppose that the Holy Spirit not only inspired the apostles with the sense of their preaching, and their style or arguments, but that the very words themselves were placed by Him from without into their mouths, what absurdity must we not suppose !"

Abelard ascribes errors to the prophets {Sic et Non, Ed^

858 Inspiration. U^7f

Cous.^ ii.)^ ''It appears too that the prophets themselves were sometimes without the gift of prophecy^ and from the habit of prophecy, uttered some things which were not true^ while under the impression that they had the spirit of prophecy ; and this was allowed them for the sake of humility, that they might thus be the better enabled to judge what they were by the Spirit of God's operation and what by their own. What wonder then, when it is clear that the very prophets and apostles were not entirely free from error^ if there appear to be some errors in the varied writings of holy fathers/'

The Tridentine Council has no definition of inspiration. The views of Catholic theologians^ respecting the inspiration of Scripture^ have lain between the two boundary lines, so that by the one party^ as by Protestants^ the most rigid verbal inspiration has been defended (Casp. Sanctius^ Salazar,- Huet, Este) ; by others the inspiration has been limited to the proper subject matter (Antonius de Dominis, Richard Simon, Henry Holdeu, in the Analysis Fldei, 1685^ etc.)^ without the determining au« thority of the Church having interfered.

In the Lutheran (Symbols)^ verbal inspiration is a supposi- tion but not a doctrine (Coitf. Aug., p. 42), — *'Did the Holy Spirit in vain give this forewarning?'' fApoL Cortf.y p. 81,) — '' Think they that these words fell incautiously from the Holy Spirit ?" fArt. 8maL, p. 383) . " Peter says : ' The prophets spake not of man's will, but through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.' " The reformed symbols, more true to their prin* ciples, have adopted more rigid definitions. Thus {Ckmf. Helv., ii. 1), "We believe the canonical Scriptures to be the very Word of God. At this day this Word of God is proclaimed in the Church by preachers legitimately called." And again (Cat. Maj\, p. 502), " The Holy Spirit daily attracts us by the preaching of the divine Worf." We meet also in Luther with the same contradictory expressions as are to be found in Origen and Augustine, respecting the inspiration of Scrip- ture; at one time the religious feeling being directed to it as a whole, at another, the understanding requiring an inves- tigation of details. He speaks of it on the one hand as the book which contains no contradictions (Walch.^ viii., p. 2140), in which, even to a letter, there is more and weightier concern than in heaven and earth (viii., p. 2161, etc.). Yet he had no hesitation in uttering the well-known offensive expressions re- specting the Canon of Holy Scripture. This opinion, it is true, he modified at a later period, but he had at all times no scruples in attributing imperfections or logical errors to Scripture. In his preface to Linken's observations on the five books of Moses

1863.] Ifupiratian. 869

{Which., xiv., p. 172), he says, ''The prophets have, withoat doubt, studied in Moses, and the later prophets in the earlier, and their good thoughts, inspired by the Holy Ghost, have been written into a book. But if at times hay, straw, and stubble, instead of pure silver and gold and precious stone, have been used by these good and true teachers and inquirers, the founda- tion remains — the rest is destroyed by fire.'^ He allows himself the liberty of interpreting Old Testament words in a manner contrary to their New Testament interpretation. Thus Is. viii. 17, 18, is cited in Heb. ii. 13 as an expression of Christ^s, but Luther explains it in his exposition of the prophets as an expres- sion of the prophet himself (Walch., vi., p. 121 f). Bespecting the argument of Paul in his typological apprehension of the his- tory of Hagar and Sara (Gal. iv. 22), he does not hesitate to declare that it is ''snim Stich zu schwach/' nevertheless, it makes the matter of faith very clear. In reference to the sec- tion Mat. xxiv. and Luc. xxi., where interpreters are at variance as to what refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and what to the end of the world, he is of opinion that " Matthew and Mark interweave them both together, and do not keep the arrangement, but that Luke has done this^' (in Walch,, xi., p. 2496) Accord- ing to Genesis (xii. 1 — 4) God appears to Abraham first in Haran, according to the Acts of the Apostles (vii. 2), He had already appeared to him before in Mesopotamia. Luther thinks '' that Moses relates this history accurately and properly, and not Stephen, who had received it from Moses alone. Now, it often happens that when a fact is being related incidentally, people are not always so very particular and exact about all the circum- stances, as must be the case with those who feel that they must faithfully represent the history of past events for the benefit of posterity. Thus Moses is an historian, but Stephen relies upon the fact that Moses is so.'^ Again in Gen. xv. 13, the duration of the Egyptian bondage is set down as 400 years, in Exod. xii. 40, at 430, in opposition to which, Paul (Gal. iii. 17) following the LXX. and the Samaritan, reckons the time from the promise given to Abraham to the conclusion of the bondage at 430 years. Luther now first tries, under the guidance of Lyra, to assimilate by a forced process this reckoning of Paul with the text, but {Ad Gen,, XV. 13) he makes the concession that here also the his- torian " does not reckon the time very exactly and properly .'' (p. 1448).

The same Calvin, who, referring to the contents of Scripture in general, says : ^^ Since daily miracles are not given from heaven . . . the Scriptures are to be reckoned as heaven-sent, and as if the very words of God were heard in them,^' makes use

860 Inspiraiion. [July,

of the freest remarks in details respecting historical incorrect- ness. In the account of the example of the manner in which the most capricious tyranny should be regarded^ Luke in vi. 29 differs from the account which Matthew y. 40 gives. Calvin here contents himself with the observation : '^ The different lan- guage of Matthew and Luke do not alter the sense/' In the Epistle to the Hebrews xi. 21^ the passage Oren. xlvii. 81, is given according to the version of the LXX., which follows another reading of the Hebrew text. Calvin remarks briefly: ^'We know that the apostles were not very scrupulous in this : as re- gards the subject matter it makes little difference.'^ I Cor. x. 8, where Paul states the number as 28,000 instead of 24,000, he says, '^ It is no new thing to give a round number when it is not intended to give a precise enumeration of persons/' On Matt, xxvii. 9, he says it is clear that here Zacharias should be read instead of Jeremiah, but ^'how the name of Jeremiah crept in I do not know, nor do I much care to know." With still greater freedom, Bullinger ascribes to the sacred writers even lapses of memory. On 1 Cor. x. 8, he writes these words : " In numeris facile irrepunt librariorum mendse, sed et scriptores nofmunquam tnemoria falsi hallucinantur" That the order in the narration of events of the evangelists is not to be tenaciously adhered to is owned by Bugenhagen, in his sketch of a harmony of the His- tory of the Passion, where he exposes the errors of the Alexan- drine version, which have at times crept into the text of the New Testament. Brenz also remarks {Ad Rom., xi., 25) that the quotation does not render the sense of the Old Testament text — *' sed sententia est eadem." More exact definitions of inspiration are also wanting in the oldest dogmatic writers : Melancthon's and Chemnitz's Loci, also Gerhard's Loci, which were first in 1625 followed by an ^^Exegesis uberior loci de ScripturA." Indeed there is not to be found even here any treatment of the '^ locus de inspiratione," but chap. xiv. ff. defends not only the infalli- bility of the written text, but also the antiquity of the vowels and accents.

At length, in opposition to Syncretism and budding Pietism and Indiffcrentism, the rearing up of this dogma is completed in the Lutheran churchy and maintains the same form as is seen in Calov, Quenstedt, and Hollaz. The same thing happened also in the Reformed Church, while the Swiss and French theologies, and also that of the Netherlands^ in the period before the Synod of Dort, take the freer standpoint both in other matters and also in respect of this dogma. Verbal inspiration was defended in its strictest form by the representative of the old scholastic teaching, Voetius (who died in 1676), Disp. Selectm, tom. i., in the treatise

1863.] Inspiraiion. 861

Qnousqne se extendat auctoritas Script. S.: ''Not a word'' — we here read — ''is contained in the Holy Scriptores which was not delivered in its exactest sense; even the punctuation not ex- cepted^ and even that which the writers already knew before has been imparted to them again^ not indeed quoaid impressiones specierum intelligibilium^ sed quoad conceptum formalem et actualem recordationem/' not according to the impressions of intelligible species^ but according to formal conception and actual recollection. In direct opposition to Luke i. 1 — 3 (in 20^ p. 47) the question^ " An ordinaria studia, inquisitiones et prsemedi- tationes fuerint necessaria ad scribendum?'' is answered by " Nego. Spiritus enim immediate, extraordinarie et infallibiliter movebat aid scribendum, et scribenda inspirabat et dictabat :'' — Whether ordinary studies, researches and premeditations were necessary in writing, [it is replied] No 1 for the Spirit moved them immediately, extraordinarily, and infallibly to write, and inspired and dictated what was written.

The controversy between Capellus and Buxtorf, about the antiquity of the Hebrew vowels, in connexion with other fallings off in doctrine of the high school o£ Saumur, called out the opposition of the Swiss church, and it succeeded in the Formnld Consensus in bringing out a new symbolical book (1675), which sanctioned inspiration even quoad verba etvocaliatextus Hebraici (Vide Art. Helvetic Consensus formula). The more complete dogmatic proofs are given by the principal author himself, the learned Heidegger, of Zurich, in his Exercitaiiones Biblica, Capelli, Simonis, Spinosse et aliorum sive aberrationibus sive fraudibus opposite, 1700. From the middle of the seventeenth century there prevailed in both churches, as the reigning dogma, a passive inspiration of Holy Scripture, according to which the author was regarded as "Calami Spiritus S. dictantis,^^ which Ood made use of just as the flute-player uses his instrument. (Quen- stedt, Theologia Didact. Polem., p. i., p. 65 ; Heidegger, Corpus TheoLy ii., p. 34). Not only the sense, but also the words ; not only these, but also the letters and the vowels written under the Hebrew consonants — and according to some even the punctua- tion— proceeded from the Spirit of God. (Calvin, i., p. 484; Maresius, Syntagma TheoL, p. 8). There may be recognized in- deed in the sacred writers, in the forms of representation and of language, individual differences which are to be regarded mean- while only as an operation of accommodation of the Holy Spirit (Quenstedt, i., p. 76 ff). The question might further be put, whether the Holy Ghost condescended even to errors of lan- guage, barbarisms and solecisms. This was affirmed by Masius and some others ; the greater number, however, held the very

862 Inspiration. U^7j

assumption to be blasphemy, and Qnenstedt and others removed the difficulty by asserting that -what the Greeks considered a barbarism, was not such in the eyes of the Church (i., p. 84); others maintained the thorough purity and classical diction of the New Testament language (Seb. Pfochen, HoUaz, Oeorgi, etc.) . Yet, at this period, at the very time in which this dogma was guarded by the most rigid formulae, the traditional faith had on all sides b^an to waver. Milder views of inspiration had already been vindicated by Calixtus in the Lutheran church. He assumes the wide-spread distinction in Catholic theology be- tween a revelatio and an assistentia or directio divina. What- ever impressed the senses, or was otherwise known, was not peculiarly revealed by God to the writer ; but he directed men by his '' direction,'' that they should not write anything alien from truth fResp. ad Theol. MoguntdeinfalL Pont. Rom. 72, 74)., Nay, he limits revelation to those truths, which Thomas Aquinas had designated as the proper and direct objects of belief. We find these words in the seventy-seventh thesis : — ^* And it is not said in divine Scripture, that every particular matter con- tained in it ought to be attributed to a peculiar divine revelation, but that it chiefly f or what belongs to the intention of Scripture, namely, all that concerns the redemption and salvation of the human race, owes its origin to divine revelation. But in stating other matters, known either by experience or by the light of nature, the writers were regulated in such a manner by the divine '^ direction '' and spirit, that th^y wrote nothing but what was true, becoming, and befitting the subject matter. Among the Arminians, Grotius, in his Voium de pace, and Clericus, in his Sentiments de qnelques th6ologiens de Hollande sur Phistoire critique du V.T., composS par Rich. Simon, 1685, even limited inspiration to an assistentia divina. The same view was repre- sented in the Anglican Church, and among dissenters in England. — Lowth, Vindication of the Inspiration of the Old and New Test., 1692; Lamothe, Inspiration!^ of the New Test., 1694; Williams, Boyle's Lectures, 1695 ; Clarke, Divine Authority of the Holy Scr^., Baxter, Methodus, 1681 ; Doddridge, Dissert, on the Inspiration of the New Test. The first more considerable theo- logian who defends this view in the Lutheran Church, since the beginning of the eighteenth century, is Matth. Pfaif, in Tubingen, in the Institutiones Dogmaticm et Morales, 1719. He does not allow of an equally pervading inspiration of the collective con- tents, but in truths to be held as matters of faith a suggestio, though not confined to the fact of writing ; in historical transac- tions, a directio ; and in some indifferent and external matters, or, as where Paul expresses himself uncertainly, he thinks the

1863.] Inspiratian. 868

writers were left to themselves. ''In general/' Baumgarten adds {Glatibenslehre, iii. 85)^ "God has^ in the choice and ordering of matters^ retained so much of every one's real present idea and collective kind of thought as best consists with his aim and design.''

The greater the influence exercised by this dogma in exe- gesis^ and through exegesis on the coUective doctrine of faith^ the more surprise does it create that the attention of the latest theology^ and especially of that of the ancient churchy was not more directed to it. First of all, it had been worth while to have looked over the Scripture authority of the old church doc- trine of inspiration^ and to have examined it more accurately. Deducting isolated expressions^ which ought never to have been brought forward^ or such expressions as attest only a prophetic inspiration^ it lies chiefly in the passages 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; John XX. 35 j 1 Cor. ii. 18. Theologians who, without sufficient know- ledge of the Bible or regard to its phraseology, depend upon those passages, defend, on the same ground, not only the general correctness of all the doctrine, but also the circumstantial ac- counts of Holy Scripture, and pass over in silence, or remove without scruple, any considerations to the contrary. In its entire and full consequence, the older theory is only found in one theologian^ the Professor of the Ecole Evangelique de Geneve, Gaussen, La TMopnetutie, second ed., 1842^ — ^a work which, however, is rather the product of brilliant and inspired religious rhetoric than of a more advanced theological study. It gave the first occasion to the withdrawal of Prof. Scherer, who had been led to entertain more liberal views through the influence of the German theology. In Germany, on the other hand, the power of circumstances, placed through later criticism and exe- gesis in the light of day, has had such fruitful results, that a defender of the old theory equally resolute has not appeared. To judge by some expressions in Stier's exegetical writings, he might be reckoned as such ; but other expressions occur which surrender the claim to full infallibility (cf. my Comm. on the Sermon on the Mount, fourth ed., p. 34 with p. 4.) Rudelbach {Luth. Zeitschrift, 1840), has, up to the present time, confined himself only to a dogmatico-historical enquiry, and that not throughout a faithful and impartial one. Hengstenberg, De- litzscb, and Hofmann, following their exegetical praxis, arrive at a freer idea of inspiration. The limitation of the notion of inspiration to Scripture, is declared by Hofmann to be arbitrary, and it extended even to heathen writings and poets (Schrift- beweiSj i., 26, 27). This latter theologian thus explains 2 Tim. iii., 16, " that the Scripture, in the entirety of all its parts, has

864 Itupiration. U^Ym

God himself throughout and everywhere for its author^ and that it is throughout serviceable for everything which men may require for their spiritual direction, and that it is distinguished from all other that Timothy might have been disposed to regard as a source in sacred things/' But how little the author thought there of verbal inspirations, he shews^ e.ff,, in his remarks on Johniii. 27, f. (ii. 1^ p. 18 :) " And I may say that an expression of the Baptist, which refers in so striking a manner to that which Jesus said to Nicodemus^ could not possibly have been commu- nicated in its original form. This is surely not the case with this^ or with, perhaps^ any of the longer discourses of this gospel, but they are all repeated by the evangelist according to the indi- viduality of his own expressions, and subjected to the connexion of his own thoughts/' Among the latest dogmatists^ Beck has expressed himself in a particularly outspoken manner on the subject of inspiration {System der Christlichen Lehre, p. 240) . He, as well as Lange {Philosophische Dogmatiky p. 552), opposes the mechanical separation of contents and form^ of inspired and non-inspired elements. Representation and contents are, in the product of the revelation by the Spirit, inseparably blended. Yet it is only a mechanical separation that is thereby obviated, for he says (p. 242) : ^^ Only to the divine mysteries of the king- dom does spiritual truth extend^ but not to external and human matters^ excepting in so far as they stand in essential connexion with these : it elevates the human ' organs ' to a knowledge which is contrary to all human wisdom into the full light of truths but does not instruct in matters, nor concern itself about errors which are quite indifferent to this spiritual truth, and which belong to the province of general learning, such as chro- nological, topographical, and other purely worldly historical circumstances.'' This result, however^ ran too counter to the older dogmatism, for the newest Lutheran dogmatist^ Philippi, Kirchliche Glaubenskhre, to be able to abide by it (part i., 1854). Here^ also, we hear, of course^ of organic combination of the divine and human spirit in inspiration^ and what is taught thereupon seems very intelligible and admissible, excepting that it does not, in some particulars, approve itself to exegetical and critical science. The author has contented himself with taking into consideration the various readings, and the Hebrew vowel marks and accents. The existing variety of readings has, how- ever, now induced a more moderate postulate ; while, according to a newly introduced terminology, the inspiration of the Word {WorUinsjnration) is affirmed; verbal inspiration {fVarter-inspi-^ ration) is contemptuously rejected (p. 184). But, after all, does this distinction imply anything more than what Beck has ex-

1863.] Inspiration. 865

pressed^ namely, that, " together with the thoughts, the repre- sentation {darstellunff), i.e., the genus dicendi, was also given ?" Now, if the thought have an equal relation to the words appear- ing in the various readings, does not the question arise whether the readings are all equdly related to the thoughts ? Finally, supposing the religious craving for certainty of Scripture authority to be the canon, in accordance with which it shall be determined as to how far Scripture is inspired — will justice be done to this canon if, together with the inspiration of the words, thought be not also set before us with precision ?

This question was treated in a more popular manner, by Dr. Tholuck, in an essay entitled, . " Die Inspirations-Lehre,'' in the Deutsche Zeitschnft for 1850.

Oaga^ fifteen miles from Ascalon, was the lost town of importance on the coast of Canaan, next to Egypt. Like Ascalon, it was captured hy the tribe of Judah and retaken by the rhilistines. It was here, according to the book of Jndges, that Samsdn polled down the temple of Dagon, and perished along with the Philistines who were assembled in it. Alexander the Great, on proceeding from Tyre to Egypt, took Gaza after a siege of five months, and then garrisoned it. Snbseqnently it was restored on capitolation to Jonathan the Maccabee, who bnmea the suburbs. Alexanda Jansdus, king of the Jews, destroyed the town, after having besieged it for a year. It was restored and fortified by Gabinius, the Roman general ; Bt. Jerome speaks of it as a town of considerable importance. The Mussulmans seized it in 634. Restored by the Christians under Baldwin III., it was g^ven to the templars. Saladin retook it in 1187. About modem Graza, Yolney has given us the best account ; and we cannot do better than quote his own words : —

" Gaza consists of three villages, of which the one under the name of the Castle, is situated between the two others upon a hill of moderate elevation. This castle, which was probably strong for the time it was built, is now nothing bat a mass of ruins. The seraglio of the Turkish official, which forms part of it, is as much ruined as that of Ramla ; but it has the advantage of having an extensive prospect. From its walls the view embraces the sea, which is separated from it by a nat shore of sand about a mile in breadth, and the plain, the date trees, and the smooth and naked appearance of which reminded one of the land- scapes of Egypt ; in a word, here tne soil and climate entirely lose their Arab character. The heat, the drought, the breeze, and the dews, are the same as upon the banks of the Nile ; and the inhabitants have more the complexion, the stature, the manners, and the accent of Egyptians than of Syrians."— 3ftinit.

( 866 ) [July,

CONTBTBUnONS TO MODSBH ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOBY.

No. L

JSxtraeU from the Chronicles of the Helvetian fformerlff Bohemian hrelkren^sj Church of Lyed nod Lcibem {Litia above the Elbe). From the Bohemian (US.} of the Rev. Josef ProchdzJca, the jpresent dergyman^ translator of Archinshqp Whatdy^s ^* Easy Lessons on Christian Evidences'* into Bohemian.

The Church militant is subject to constant changes, like the moon, which sometimes wanes, sometimes shines with full bril- liancj, and sometimes stt£fers a sad eclipse. Such has been the case with the Bohemian church, which has been always a mili* tant church ; sometimes it has had to endure most violent oppo- sition, at others again has raised its head on high (at the b^in- ning of the seventeenth century it was in a flourishing condi- tion), till at length, when the persecution under Ferdinand arose, it suffered a sad eclipse. For Ferdinand II., the mortal enemy of all evangelical Christians, being made king of Bohemia in the year 1617, craftily devised all manner of oppressive measures against the Bohemians, until in 1624 he issued an edict, in accordance with which all evangelical clergy were expelled fVom the kingdom, and they were afterwards followed by a multitude of the nobles and common people. Thus the Bohemian church, a small portion of the church militant of God, after having hearkened to the will of God in its time, s . e., for the space of two hundred years, fell asleep.

Yet God almighty and merciful, who, when the time of shewing mercy has come, can assemble, unite, bind together, fill up with flesh, clothe with skin, fill with new spirit, and viviify the bones of the Israelites already dry and scattered about in the fields, has raised up again by his might his faithful witnesses, the Bohemians, slain by the enemies of his truth, and lying in the streets of the city. As his instrument therein, he made use of the kind-hearted Emperor, then reigning, Joseph II., whose soul he awoke; and in the year 1781 induced him to issue on the 13th of October a patent, in which he caused proclamation to be made throughout his whole empire, that, whereas dominion over the conscience belongs to God alone, he did not desire to be lord over the conscience, but unfettered every man^s conscience, and graciously permitted each to serve the true God according to his conscience. Gladdened then was the heart of the rem- nant of the faithful Bohemians, who were captive in the spi- ritual Babylon ; and God had kept in Bohemia more than seven thousand whose knees had not bent to Baal. That spiritual

1863.] Coniribuiions to Modem Ecclesiasiieal HUtory. 867

captiyity, beginning with the year 1624^ had lasted one hundred and fifty-seven years.

The patent above-mentioned was proclaimed in Bohemia, in general, on the 30th of October, 1781, and in the town of Lysfi) at the supreme or hereditary chancery, on the festival of Christ- mas. The joy that this caused in the hearts of faithful Bo- hemians was most deeply felt by those whom it especially con- cerned ; but other God-fearing people also rejoiced with them, marvelling at the wonderful works of Ood. But as people, who have long been in a dark dungeon, see but little owing to the weakness of their eyes, which are dazzled by the powerful beams of the sun, and do not know what to do ; even such was the case with the faithful Bohemians. For on being released from their spiritual prison they knew not to whom to intrust their hungry and thirsty souls, nor whence to invite spiritual pastors for themselves. They did not, however, think the less of Ood's gracious mercy, and band after band went to registration (whence up to the present day they are called ''the registrants'' by the common people), each announcing himself at the office of the local authorities of his district. It is proper to mention here, that the citizens of Lys& went to announce themselves at the office of their magistrate, but he, whether from fear or from ill- will, refused to take their names ; and they, therefore, betook themselves to the supreme chancery, where they were imme- diately received, and where they afterwards, as well villagers as townspeople, always announped themselves for registration.

However, this free and unrestricted announcement of names did not last long ; for in accordance with a supreme ordinance of the 3l8t of January, 1782, a commission was appointed, before which every one had to present himself personally, and be questioned as to his confession. That supreme ordinance ran in the following words : — " Whereas many persons have errone- ously announced themselves as non-Catholics,^ that first an- nouncement has therefore no validity, but if there be any more of them, they must appear and give in their names anew at the chancery, and in the presence of a clergyman whom the (Catholic) bishop shall appoint, and each be without compulsion questioned as to the confession he has made, which will be briefly drawn up into a protocol, read over to him, and subscribed by his own hand.'' In accordance with this ordinance a second commission was appointed at Lys&, the clergyman present at the first having been the vicar or principal priest, who had behaved harshly and

" Evangelical Protestants were only termed **a-CathoUcs," or "non-Catholics," by the patent of toleration, and might not be officially termed Evangelicals till 1849.

868 Contributions to Modem Ecclesiastical History. [Jul7>

unkindly to the people, asking them to which of the three pitiful religions they intended to belong, the confession of Augsburg, the Helvetian confession, or the non-united Greek church. And here then was a good deal of variation ; for, from ignorance, some announced themselves as belonging to the con- fession of Augsburg, some to the Swiss, some to the Helvetian confession, and others to the non-united Greek church. Seeing, therefore, such variation of statement among the people, another commission was appointed, at which a different clergyman was present, who was a sensible, kind man, and treated the people in a friendly manner. Summoning all those who had given in their names, he explained the difference between these three confessions, especially distinguishing them in the article of the Holy Supper of the Lord. Then, and not till then, were the eyes of the people opened; they were dismissed, and again summoned one by one. Thus the brethren in the district of Lysd unanimously attached themselves to the reformed or re- newed Christian religion of the Helvetian confession. This happened before Christmas in the year 1782.

When the limited time allowed for registration had elapsed at the* end of the year 1782, those who gave in their names afterwards were not merely registered like the former ones, but were instructed for six weeks either in convents or at the house of their parish priest. If it happened that a whole congregation or many persons gave in their names together, three Romish clergymen were sent to instruct them. If those who had given in their names stood out the whole six weeks, then, and not till then, was a certificate drawn up for them, and they were regis- tered among the non-Catholics. In this patent earnest instruc- tions were give to the clerffv, to make use of all gentleness and inoderation%nd carefaUy to abstain from aU h^ roughness, threatening, and insult. This last patent was issued at Prague on April 30, 1783.

How the church at Lysd appointed its first spiritual pastor ^ and

what happened in his time.

The supreme ordinance did not allow the Bohemian churches to obtain and appoint spiritual pastors from foreign lands, but only from Austrian Silesia, or from Hungary. But as the Bohemian churches could only invite spiritual pastors acquainted with the Slavonic language from Hungary, they, therefore, without exception betook themselves thither. The Bohemian provincial government, therefore, requested of the vice-regal council of the kingdom of Hungary, that the Bohemians who had registered themselves might be provided with clergymen

1863.] Contributions to Modern Ecclesiastical History, 869

from Hungary. Count Philip Kinsky^ a Bohemian nobleman, wrote an urgent letter to Samuel Szalay, at that time superin^ tendent of the district of Zatishok in Hungary, requesting him to send a spiritual pastor for his seignioralty. This letter, which was couched in the most friendly terms, was highly valued at the synod at Saraspotok, and it was settled that clergymen should be sent into Bohemia. This, however, caused great anxiety to the reformed authorities there, as there was scarcely anybody to be found who had even a slight knowledge of the Bohemian tongue, the reformed in Hungary almost all speaking the Madjar language. Meanwhile the synod recommended to Count Kinsky a person selected from the few Slavonic churches, Francis Kow&czh, who arrived at Beichenburg in the September of 1782, and delivered his first sermon at the seat of his Excel- lency the Count. This man was the first reformed clergyman in Bohemia, and he was afterwards appointed by His Imperial and Boyal Majesty, on the 1st of April, 1784, Superintendent of the Bohemian churches. Through him the remainder of the required clergy were afterwards procured for the Bohemian churches.

It came to pass, therefore, that the church of Lysd also was desirous of placing a spiritual pastor at its head, and after a good deal of trouble the congregation applied to the agent of the Hungarian churches at Vienna, who wrote immediately to Miskolczez on that behalf. Eventually the first spiritual pastor of the church of Lys£, Joseph Szalay, arrived at Easter in the year 1783. He delivered his first sermon on the first of June, and was soon instituted and confirmed by the supreme chancery.

In the time of this first pastor little happened that is worth recording. A dwelling was preparedi for him on the ground of a townsman and brother, T. Wodnansky, and divine service was held in a bam on the property of the same person, until the erection of a house of prayer.^ As to the question of a cemetery, it is proper to remark here, that the Romanists kept quiet so long as only children died, whom they allowed to be buried in their churchyard; but as soon as a grown up person died, they imme- diately raised an opposition and refused to allow his burial in their churchyard. As a proof of this it is sufficient to cite the case of the wife of a citizen of Lys&, who had three children at a birth, and died almost immediately as well as the children. The Romanists refused to allow her to be buried in their church- yard. The brethren of the church, therefore, applied to the

* It may be remarked that in Austria the sacred buildings of the Protestants are not called "churches," but prayer-houses, in German Bethdtaer, Two words, dum modlitebni, are ufied in Bohemian.

NEW SERIES. VOL. III., NO. V. B B

370 Contributions to Modem Ecclesiastical History. [July>

authorities of the circle^ and requested that a place might be assigned them for a cemetery apart. The circle-commissary, Wokaun^ came and assigned them a place for a cemetery in the field of a citizen^ with the permission of the owner, who received in exchange a piece of meadow land &om the congregation. There the woman above-mentioned and her three children were buried.

This first spiritual pastor, Joseph Szalay, arrived in a bad state of health, suffering from consumption, and his illness in- creased with time, so that he delivered his last sermon on April 18, 1784. Through his exertions the Helvetian confession was for the first time translated out of the Latin language into the Bohemian, and published by Waclaw Krameryus.^ He died on May 10, and his remains were honourably buried in the presence of eighteen clergymen. He had only governed the church of Lysd for a year and a few days.

Stephen Rymdny was the second spiritual pastor appointed to the

church of Lysd,

After the death of this first minister the church remained without a pastor for seven months owing to the dearth of clergy- men. After long waiting the superintendent Kowicz, to whom the church finally made application, immediately appointed and sent Stephen Bymdny, who arrived in December 1784*, and delivered his first sermon on the first day of the festival of Christmas.

This man was first appointed to a village called Rann& in the province of Chrudim, and seignioralty of Bychenburk. But immediately on his first arrival, he perceived plainly enough that he could not promise himself a permanent abode, and could see little, if any, prospect of the enjoyment of his dues; for not the slightest provision had been made for his dwelling or mainte- nance. In a fortnight the circle-commissary was sent at his request to institute him, and summoned the whole body to the supreme chancery, but when he wanted to present the clergy- man to them, they all cried out with one voice, saying, " We never asked for a clergyman; we don't want him. Only three people have asked for him ; if they want him, let them support him.'' (N.B. — These three were those who had subscribed the petition for a clergyman). The commissary seeing their folly

' This 8bew8 how little connexion there was between the Bohemians and the Swiss reformers. But the Emperor Joseph II. was only acqoainted with the two Protestant sects existinjff in Qermany. The Bohemians take their traditions from their own writers, of whom they have a large number, beginninflr with John Hub.— A. H. W. ^ > s 6

1868.] Contributions to Modem Ecclesiastical History, 371

(for these people were already, for the most part, corrupted and without any religion), did not leave matters in that condition, but rebuked them' sharply, and ordered that on the next day every individual of the congregation should give in, in his own handwriting, how much he was willing to give for the yearly support of a spiritual pastor. The sum of thirty florins (£3) was made up in a district where there were three hundred non- Catholic families. The commissary then took his departure without effectiug anything. However, the clergyman above- named, seeing their ingratitude and remembering the words of our Lord Christ in Matt, x., when he says, '' Whosoever shall not receive you, as ye go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet,'' thought of acting in accordance there* with, but, nevertheless, that the people might be without excuse, remained there and began to perform his duties, which, by the help of God, he did perform for a whole year with great diffi- culty, and in indescribable indigence, receiving from the church for his maintenance the annual salary of seventeen florins (£1 14tf.) He was afterwards translated from that ungrateful church to that of Lysd, as is related above.

Memorable events that happened in the time of Stephen Rymdny, the second spiritual pastor of the church of Lysd,

The first care and anxiety was that a house of prayer should be built. It was not comfortable, especially in winter time, in the barn in which divine service was held, and therefore the members consulted together, and in the autumn of 1785 pro- cured a piece of rock, gratis, from the commune, hewed the stone and also carted it in the winter. Meanwhile it occurred to some of the brethren to petition His Majesty the Emperor, that the smaller church, which stands in the middle of the town, might be sold them, thinking that it would be easier to pay for that church, in course of time, than to build a new one. It also actually came to pass, that, on the 17th of March in 1786, they sent a petition to an agent at Vienna to deliver to His Majesty the Emperor, which he did. Ere long, at Easter, came the circle-commission, by supreme command, for the purpose of inquiring into the matter, but as the principal people and the magistrate were against the church being solct ^ ^he reformed body, the petition was entirely rejected > and the only thing thereby effected was, that the desire of many of the brethren for the erection of the house of prayer waxed cold.

The result was that the church was obliged to erect a house of prayer itself. Permission was, therefore, asked of the autho- rities of the circle, which arrived in the following words,

B B 2

872 Contributions to Modem Ecclesiastical History. [July,

" Whereas, according to notice that has been received, the erec- tion of a non-t])atholic house of prayer is in contemplation, because the houses of prayer in the district^ of that congrega- tion are so distant, and the attending the said houses of prayer is difficult, especially when the roads are bad, and the number of souls fixed in the supreme ordinance is exceeded by the non- Catholics dwelling in the seignioralty of Lys&j therefore, the illustrious imperial and royal provincial government is pleased to permit the erection of a house of prayer, which permission is signified to the Helvetian congregation, and also the plan sent hither will be returned back as soon as possible, according to which plan, and no other whatsoever, they may undertake the building. Permission is also given, for security from fire, to build a plain wall on one side of the house of prayer.'^

" Oiven in the circle-office of Jung-Bunzlau, on the 1 1th of June, 1787. Josef von Sivanny and Monte Chiaro, Circle- Commissary.^'

It may be remarked, that houses of prayer might not bear any similarity to Roman Catholic churches; they were not allowed to have any towers, bells, lofty windows, lofty doors, or an entrance from the street.

Since, however, there was no suitable place in possession of the congregation to build a house of prayer, a piece of garden- ground, belonging to John Wodnansky, a protestant, was purchased, on which a house of prayer and parsonage were to be erected. This spot John Wodnansky gave up at the price of one hundred florins (£10), on the terms that he himself was to present fifty florins as a member of the church, while the con- gregation was to pay him the other fifty.

When everything had thus been prepared, the house of prayer was founded on June 28, 1787, and at the laying of the first stone a sermon was preached from the book of Ezra, chap, iii., verses 10 — 18 j and thus the building of the house was begun in the name of the Lord. But any one may imagine with what difficulty the work was carried on, partly because the congregation was poor and small, and partly because, by a dis- pensation of Providence, bad seasons followed, and a war with Turkey arose ; partly, too, because many members of the church of Lyut were ungrateful towards the divine goodness, and refused to assist in the erection of the house of Gc^. In proof of this^ we may as well mention here one thing that happened. Before official permission came, the following order was issued : that the contributors, that is to say, those who paid for the piece of ground, were to settle whether they were in a position to erect a house of prayer, without permanently affecting their own real

1863.] Contributiom io Modem Ecclesiastical History. 373

property. This was made known to every member of the con- gregation. Amongst others^ some brethren in Mal^ Kostom- latky and Zboze came forward on learning this^ and assumed a thoroughly antagonistic position ; but^ instead of making known their unworthy sentiments to the churchy they betook them- selves elsewhere^ and sent a letter to the director of the local chancery, which we give as a record word for word : —

" Noble and most worthy, excellent counsellor^ Mr. Director, with the greatest humility we ask for counsel. The elders of Lysd have sent and informed us^ that they have received orders from the illustrious circle commission to the effect that we are to state in writing whether we can erect a house of prayer, with- out injury to our own livelihoods, His Majesty's royal revenues, and other due payments— -a thing which we greatly dread. There is no difBculty about the commencement, but about the completion of these laudable matters. For, as to the inhabitants, they are, for the most part, perplexed, because they maintain themselves with difQculty with their children, and there are few paying members, and we find difficulty enough in collecting the due payment for our pastor. In the beginning, we for some time comforted ourselves that His Imperial Majesty would help us, yet till now nothing has come thereof; and as to the catholic priests, surplice fees and tithes, we are still obliged to pay them to them. We also call to mind the difficulties of our ancestors, how they in better times with difficulty erected such houses of prayer and temples, and a sad time came, and they were taken from them, and now they will not even sell them to us for money. We are also troubled, at the present time, by the new organiza- tion of the country ; we do not know what new burthens it will cause us, and we have no security now, for the Noble Gentleman is well acquainted with the position of all of us.

" An instance of this is given by the paying members of the religious society. Among these, too, it is the case, as they themselves acknowledge, that at the present time they cannot contribute a kreutzer, and yet they have allowed themselves to be seduced by attractive speeches, and have subscribed with their own hands, but^re utterly unable to meet their engagements. As to the citizens of Lysd, if they can carry it out by themselves, we cheerfully concede them permission to do it ; the Lord God himself strengthen and counsel them, that they may be able to finish the work happily ! We humbly desire the Noble Gentle- man not to bring any of us under any engagements without our knowledge ; let him who likes, and who knows that he is in a position to do so, and that he does not encumber his own land, subscribe with his own hand. To your kindness, noble Sir, we

874 Contributions to Modern Ecclesiastical History. [July,

commend ourselves^ and remain^ yoar servants to command, in Kostomldtky,

^^ Franz Hobak, '^ Matej Mazuba, " Jan Skriwanek.^' Although, as is manifest from this letter, there was great lukewarmness in many brethren, yet, nevertheless, there was a greater number of those who, to the glory of God, from zeal for the house of God, spared not their contributions and the work of their hands, and by their exertions and God^s help, brought the house of prayer into such a condition, that, though not com- pletely finished, the first divine service could be held in it on Dec. 20, 1789.

^P #% ^^ ^^ ^K a^^ ^^T ^^ ^r

In the year 1790, the church of Lysd was presented with the necessary furniture for the table of the Lord, viz. : a silver-gilt chalice, a, silver-gilt paten, an embroidered altar cloth, and an ancient napkin embroidered with gold and sUver in sprigs. In fact, the Lord Almighty awakened the hearts of two widows, countesses of the reformed persuasion in Transylvania, who, hearing of the sad and pitiable state of the Bohemian churches, sent, with hearty zeal, two sets of altar furniture to Bohemia, with the intention of their being distributed to the two poorest reformed churches. The above-mentioned necessary vessels were, therefore, by the unanimous consent of the spiritual pas- tors, assigned to the church of Lysi. The names of these benefactresses are engraved in Latin letters on the chalice and on the paten. On the chalice is the following inscription : —

" Com. Christina de Bethlen, Com. Alexii Kendefi de Ma- lowiz, A. Gubem. in Transilv. Cons. A. F. vidua, Eccl. Helv. Conf. in Bohemia, dedicavit a. MDccLxxxix.'^t.e., "Presented by Countess Christina of Bethlen, widow of Count Alexius Kendefi, of Malowitz, actual privy counsellor of the royal government in Transylvania, to the churches of the Helvetic confession in Bohemia, in 1789.'^

On the paten, the name of the benefactress stands thus : —

" Com. Rachel de Kendefi, Com. v. Colonelli Gregor. dc Bethlen, vidua, Eccl. Helv. Conf. in Bohemia, dedicavit MDCCLXxxix.'^ i.e., " Presented by Countess Rachel, of Kendefi, widow of Lieutenant-Colonel Count Gregory, of Bethlen, to the churches of the Helvetic confession in Bohemia, in 1789.*'

For this valuable present, a letter of thanks was sent to the benefactresses, written in Hungarian, a translation of which we annex : —

" Your Graces, high-born ladies, our kind benefactresses !

1863.] Contributions to Modem Ecclesiastical History. 375

'^ It pleases our merciful Lord God^ who^ of His ineffable love, takes special care of His church militant here on earth, to raise up faithful fosterers for His church even in quarters whence no one expected it, even as He has inclined the hearts of your Oraces, full of good works and alms, to look with compassionate heart upon the church of God, planted anew in this kingdom of Bohemia, and from zeal for the glory of God to present to two poor churches the requisite furniture for the table of the Lord. Of these two sets of altar furniture, the one, viz., the smaller silver-gilt chalice and the smaller silver-gilt paten, a lai^e embroidered altar cloth, and an ancient napkin, embroidered with silver and gold in sprigs, has been received with grateful heart by the congregation of the church militant, in this king- dom of Bohemia, meeting at Lys&. O that this active love and the light of your Graces may illuminate others, that they, too, may take pity on the distressed Joseph-like condition of this miserably furnished house of God, and bring it to completion I How shall we requite your Graces for the kindness and active love which you have shewn towards our poor church ? We can give nothing more than grateful hearts, which, therefore, we send your Graces. Moreover, both in private and public divine service we will not cease to pray the Lord God for your Graces. May it please the Lord God Almighty to raise up yet other Nehemiahs and Tobits besides your Graces I

^' Thanking your Graces with grateful heart, on behalf of the whole church, for this kindness and sincere love, I pray that the Lord God, abundant in mercy, who is especially the father of widows and orphans, may cover your Graces, whilst still in this vale of tears, with the wings of His protection, and protect you from all evil. May the recompence of your Graces for this good work be complete before our God for ever ! May the prayers and alms of your Graces come into remembrance before God I and may it please the Lord, who is mighty above all to do much more abundantly than we can ask or think, to give you your heart's desire I Herewith, together with the whole church, I commend myself humbly and faithfully to your Graces, and remain,

" Your Graces' humble servant, " Lysd, in Bohemia, " Stephen Rimany,

Oct. 25, 1790.'' " Spiritual Pastor."

This spiritual pastor, Stephen Rimany, removed from the church of Lysd to that of Czernilow, in the circle of Konigratz, and finished his oflScial career, as minister at Lysd, on June 12,

1793.

He was succeeded by John Wegh, also a Hungarian by

376 Contributions to Modern Ecclesiastical History. [July,

birth^ as the third spiritual pastor of Lysi. lu his time a par- sonage was built^ the upper roof of the house of Gkxl completed, and the house of God raised higher. Wishing to build an expensive^ parsonage^ as. the little church was unable to meet the cost, he wrote to Hungary and Transylvania for alms ; and, in fact, obtained assistance, viz., two hundred and fifty florins (£25) from Hungary, one hundred and fifteen florins (£\\ 10«.) from Transylvania, and ten florins (£1) from Herrnhut. The parsonage was built in 1794. This spiritual pastor received a call from the church of Libisz, where he had formerly been, and transferred himself thither, after having done duty at Lys& for a little more than three years.

The fourth spiritual pastor, Stephen Berety, remained here only one year, as his object was to return to his native country, Hungary ; but, as travelling was dangerous, he was compelled to remain still in Bohemia, and thus spent this one year in the ministry of the church of Lys&.

The fifth spiritual pastor was Stephen Iv&ny. In his time, the under roof or ceiling of the temple of God was constructed, the temple completely whitened, and also a church-gallery con- structed. * This spiritual pastor remained here two years, having received a call from the church of Leczitz, in the lordship of Baudnitz.

After his departure, the church of Lysi remained for seven months without a pastor ; and the elders wrote an honourable invitation and earnest petition to Stephen Bim&ny, at Czemilow, who had already been clergyman at Lys&. They betook them- selves to him in their necessity, being persuaded, beyond question, of the patient kindness of that clergyman, who had governed their church previously for eight and a half years, whereas three other clergymen had succeeded each other there in the space of six years. Stephen Bimany, therefore, considering the melan- choly position and gloomy circumstances of this church, although in the church of Czernilow he was in the receipt of a yearly salary of three hundred florins (£30), with a quantity of corn for bread, nevertheless, from love, accepted this invitation, and began to perform his duties at Lysd on the festival of Whit- suntide.

In the time of this sixth minister, a brother and zealous member of the church, Waclaw Trzicky, of Litol, caused to be made, at his own expense, a pulpit, which cost him, altc^ether.

* How Bplendid a house it was, the reader may judge from the fact, that it had only three rooms, one with two windows and two with one.— .Srfitor of

Extracts,

1863.] Contributions to Modem Ecclesiastical History. 877

one hundred and forty florins (£14). In the year 1803, the church presented a petition to his Excellency Count Sweerz, of Spork, owner of the lordship, requesting him to present, for themse of the house of prayer, some useless benches from the old church, formerly belonging to our ancestors the Bohemian brethren, that were lying as lumber. He acceded to the request, and presented twenty old deal benches to the church.

It will not be superfluous to remark here, that from the year 1800 to 1805, a great dearth of com prevailed in Bohemia, so that a great famine arose, and the poor, being unable to purchase themselves com, were compelled — especially in the mountains — to stay their hungry stomachs with clover and other plants. The Lord God Almighty was greatly displeased with his people, and that for extreme lukewarmness in religion, for great pride and shameless godlessness, which were prevalent at that time. May the God of heaven himself convert his people, and turn away these his plagues from us 1

In the time of the seventh spiritual pastor, Antonin Bube- niczek, a native Bohemian, a patent was issued by the govern- ment (owing to financial necessity in the wars with the emperor Napoleon), to the effect that every individual must pay a certain sum of money, that his vessels of gold and silver might not be taken for the use of the Imperial mint, on payment of which sum they were to be stamped with the letter B. This church, also, was then obliged to produce and redeem its vessels of gold and silver. Such were the above-mentioned richly gilt silver chalice and paten. For the redemption of these vessels, the sum of thirteen florins (£1 6^.) was collected from the more active members of the church. But this sum was not sufficient to release both vessels, and the paten had to be given up, and thus was lost to the church. But the chalice was brought home and redeemed, as is proved by the quittance lying in the church chest, which was also copied by order of the Consistory at Vienna, and sent to Vienna through the provisional superinten- dent Ladislaw Bak. This took place in 1811, the year in which the famous financial patent was issued.

In 1813, it was ordained by a court decree for the avoidance of all offence, that was given by the performance of rough work on the part of the non-catholics on the festivals observed in the Popish church, that the pastors should not fail forthwith to publish the prohibition of this rough work, on the festivals of the Romish church, in the public meetings of the congregation, that all offence might be put a stop to, and due reverence preserved towards the dominant religion. This was published in this church on the 20th of June.

378 Contributions to Modem Ecclesiastical History, [July,

On Dec. 15, in the year 1815, died our brother of blessed memory, Jan Wodnansky, and on the 16th of the same month his mother, the widow of Jan Wodnansky, an active member of our church, from whom the place, on which the temple of the Lord stands, was purchased for fifty florins. Both were buried at the same time, on Dec. 18, in the presence of a large assem- blage of people, and were laid, both the son and the mother, in one grave. They left but one descendant, John, a youth of fifteen, in whom we all had good hopes that he would follow the steps of his excellent father, but herein we were all utterly deceived ; for, after his father's funeral, he appeared no more in our temple, but four days afterwards (probably owing to the influence of his bigoted mother, who was attached to the Bomish religion, and her siUy friends), he announced to the Popish clergyman his intention of passing to the Church of Rome, and, in fact, foolishly passed over to the Romish religion. Thus, the remarkable family of the Wodnanskys, who had been, in the beginning, prominent pillars of our church, disappeared before five and thirty years had passed away.

In 1816, a red altar cloth, with a yellow fringe, was pur- chased to cover the table of the Lord, at the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Such a cloth was much wanted, for the two that had been sent as a present from Transylvania were already almost worn out. This was remarked by the pious Tabitha, of our church, Elizabeth, widow of Czalda, of Stratow, who imme- diately offered forty florins (£4) for the purpose, from earnest love to the house of God, and thus, by her example, proved that even in these lukewarm times there were here and there zealous, true widows to be found, who were ready to contribute to the glory of God out of that which He has granted them according to the flesh. May her memory be blessed among our posterity, for we have a sure and certain hope that she is already receiving, from the mercy of God, the recompence of her Christian conver- sation on earth !

In the same year was also fulfilled the earnest desire of our brethren who were desirous and able to lay to heart the present hard and dear times, in accordance wherewith several pieces of land were to be purchased, for the easier maintenance of the clergyman of the place. A suitable piece of ground was oflFered for sale from the land of Kaspar Kaplan, our brother, and was purchased for the use of our poor little church, at the price of five hundred and sixty florins (£56), and paid for. Since, how- ever, we had not so large a sum of ready money, we were compelled to borrow three hundred florins from brother Wojtech Kulich, the miller, of Benatkv, and one hundred florins from

1863.] Contributions to Modem Ecckriastical History. 379

another brother^ Mikulas Kaplan^ a debt which burthened our church for several years afterwards^ till at lengthy by God's help^ it was liquidated.

lu 1817^ on Nov. 2, the church of Lysi, along with the rest of the evangelical churches in the Austrian dominions, cele- brated the so-called jubilee of the Aeformation (in commemora- tion of the German Reformation effected by Dr. Martin Luther in 1517), with regard to which solemnity a memorial book was published, containing a description of the celebration in each and every church. The preacher, Gerson Tandy, in his sermon on the prescribed text, earnestly exhorted his hearers to grati- tude to God for the liberty granted to their church, and finished his discourse with the following words : —

''Let us take seriously to heart the consciousness of the freedom that we have obtained, and now that all oppressive diffi- culties in the way of our religion have disappeared, let us use our freedom for our real good ! Under the pretence of freedom let us not give way to the body, but through love let us mutually assist each other ! Let us be free, yet not having freedom as a cloke for our own wickedness, but as servants of God ! Let not bodily passions and evil desires pass with us from the third to the fourth century of the renovation of the church, that it may not testify against us and accuse us of those misdeeds which ifrere found among us iu the last century! And since we can now boast of a Christian toleration, let this truth be our con- stant rule for the future, that it is our duty to conduct ourselves in a friendly manner and without offence towards people of an- other creed, in order that by our actions all men may under- stand of what religion we are, since we observe the friendliness and love enjoined by Christ in our social intercourse, order and discipline in our homes, holiness without hypocrisy in our churches, honourable rectitude in our dealings, and good sense in our religion according to the Word of God !

''Let us strive for this, that we may be good ancestora to our posterity, that they may honour our names, even when our bodies are reduced to dust in the earth, even as we can boast of the good report and constancy in the faith of our own predecessors of blessed memory ! God grant that ray words may be fulfilled ! God grant that pur good thoughts of to-day at the present solemnity may remain in blessed recollection in our church at Lys& ! On this day hundred years — if we are no more here — may our posterity have good cause to remember with joy and gratitude the great things that the Lord has done with us I''

It is proper to mention here for the sake of grateful remem- brance, that the neighbouring evangelical church of Wtelno

380 Contributions to Modem Ecclesiastical History. [Joly^

celebrated this jubilee festival by an act of generous beneficence, presenting all that came into its treasury at this festival, viz., fifty-one florins fifteen kreutzers {£5 2$. 3d.), to our church at Lysd towards the payment of the debt with which it was burth- ened through the purchase of the church land above-mentioned.

In 1823 the spiritual pastor of Lys&, Gerson Tandy, con* sidering the poverty of the local church, his own large family, and also the ingratitude of many of its members — for he had one hundred and thirty-five fiorius (£13 10s.) owing to him among them, which he could not in any wise obtain — at length after twelve years service departed to Hungary, the native country of his excellent father^ finishing his officild connexioa with Lys& with these words in his farewell sermon: '^Thus, therefore, brethren, forgetting those things that are behind us, I commend you to God and to the Word of his grace, who is also able to build you up and to give you an inheritance ; and may he build you up and give it you amongst all his saints I — Amen, Amen, Amen I"

The ninth spiritual pastor, who came hither from the church of Dwakaczowitz in the circle of Chrudim, was named Gerson Szalatnay, also a Hungarian, who of all the clergymen of Lys^ held his office the longest, viz., for full thirty years, to the end of 1854.

In the time of this clergyman, in the year 1827, on the motion of some of the more zealous members, the temple of the Lord, which had not been whitened outside for almost thirty- eight years and looked very dismal, was entirely coloured yellow, and the whole roof too inside, which was very much decayed, was repaired.

In 1839, on Feb. 3, in accordance with an order received from the superior authorities, the preacher was obliged to give out the following notice in the temple of the Lord :—

'' Notice is hereby given, that, if any Catholic Christian visit our temple of the Lord, he may not be permitted to remain there, since this is forbidden by the supreme authority, which will not allow any dissemblers. Wherefore, if any such person be found here, let him avoid ofiending, and let him be in this respect obedient to the supreme ordinance. To each who may be convinced of the truth of our evangelical religion, the way is opened for him legally, that is after six weeks^ instruction, to pass over to it ; but clandestine visiting our church is strictly forbidden. Wherefore, let every one act in accordance here- with.^' This notice was read in the presence of the official of the supreme chancery at Lys&, Em. Dostraszil.

On July 8, 1837, a great fire broke out in the town of Lysa

1863.3 Contributions to Modem Ecclesiastical History. 881

which destroyed about fifty houses. The fire broke out in the barn of a citizen immediately behind our churchy and our church too immediately lay in ashes. Although the roof^ the benches^ and the organ remained uninjured^ yet some days afterwards through a violent rain the whole ceiling fell in and so injured the organ^ that its repair cost over seventy florins {£7), In the same year through the greatest energy on the part of the minister and the members of the churchy the temple of the Lord^ which presented a very melancholy spectacle, was entirely rebuilt with « new front ; but a debt of more than two hundred florins (£20) was incurred, because the expenses were large, and the members were already exhausted in making offerings for the house of the Lord. A petition for eleemosynary assistance was sent to their kindred in the faith in all the Austrian territories, but very little aid was obtained, so that the church was long before it paid the debt. In this great fire the parsonage garden was also destroyed, which had previously been planted with many beautiful trees, and produced good crops of fruit. The great power of God was manifest here in the circumstance, that the parsonage, which only stands a couple of yards off the church, did not become a victim to the devouring element.

[On April 5, 1861, the imperial patent was issued, which proclaimed religious equality throughout the Austrian empire* A new and freer constitution was also given to the Protestant churches. The pastor, Oerson Szalatnay, had died in 1854, and in 1862 the Bev. Joseph Froch&zka, was elected to the living of Lysa. He was then holding a benefice at Namslau, in the Prussian Silesia, on the boundary line between the Polish and German populations, and had the charge of the Polish portion of the congregation of Namslau. He is the translator of Arch- bishop Whately^s Easy Lessons on Christian Evidences into Bohemian, and his translation has already reached a second edition. He made a considerable pecuniary sacrifice in leaving Namslau for Lysi; for which may the Lord reward him !]

A. H. Wratislaw.

( 382 ) j:Jaly,

INTBODUGTION TO THE RABBINIC BIBLE: BT JACOB BES

CHAJDL

Translated from the Kabbinical Hebrew, with explanatory notes, by CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG, LL.D.

[Translator's note. — If the statement of the learned Kenni- cott is true, that " this preface being printed in the rabbinical character^ which few Christians ever read^ and fewer explain^ has continued almost unknown/^ and very few will be disposed to question it, a translation of Jacob Ben Chajim's remarkable Introduction to Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible will be considered no mean contribution to the cause of Biblical literature. Kenni- cott, it is true, has to some extent made this introduction more generally known to critics of the Old Testament text, by pub- lishing a Latin translation of it,'* which he discovered in MS. in the Bodleian library. But this hardly contains more than half of the actual introduction, and many passages of the printed portions, I may safely affirm, are as difficult to be understood by those whom it is designed to enlighten, as the original itself. In my translation I have aimed to be literal, and have added notes wherever I thought they were required to elucidate the version. But for Dr. Alexander's new edition of Kitto's Oyclop€edia, in which almost every Jewish subject bearing upon Biblical litera- ture is discussed, these notes would have had to be more lengthy and more numerous. May this translation of the work of the first labourer at the Massora induce some critics of the Old Testament text to devote their energies to this much neglected subject.]

Pbaised be the Creator, who exists and yet none can see him, who is hidden and yet found by every one that seeks him, who graciously bestowed language on mankind in order that they might communicate precious things joined together by wisdom, so as to become one, to gather his rain and flame, and learn his words and ways. He endowed his people, bis first-born Son, with the holy tongue, which is the language of the law and the Prophets, and is very wonderfully adapted to open the eyes of the blind and impart light unto them, so that all the nations of the world may know that there is nothing like this holy language in purity of style and charm of diction ; it is like a tree of life to those who possess it, and its wisdom imparts life to the owner thereof. Now God gave it to his people whom he had chosen for himself — gave it to them only to be concealed under the shadow of their hands ; for they alone know its mysteries, its

« Ths State of the printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament considered. Dis- sertation the second. Oxford, 17G9. p. 229—244.

1863.] Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. 383

grammar^ its rules and its intricacies. And the men of the Great Synagogue, in whom was heavenly light, bright and power- ful, like pure gold, on whose heart every statute of the law was engraved, have set up marks, and built a wall around it, and made ditches between the walls, and bars, and gates, to preserve the citadel in its splendour and brightness ; and they all came to its transparent cloud, and burning doctrine, and rising incense ; and they sanctified themselves to take the fire from off its altar, so that no other hand might touch it and desecrate it, so as to become a bat for every fool; they strung together its golden words from columns of the word of God, — words of purity ; and the spirit alighted upon them, and as if by prophecy they wrote down their labours in books, to which nothing is to be added. The princes of the people gathered together to hear their sublime words 'y and when they had finished their work, the supernatural vision and its source were sealed, and the glory and splendour departed, and the angel of the Lord appeared no more. For no one rose after them who could do as they did. And now we are here this day gathering the gleanings which they have left ; and we capture the faint ones of their rear-guard, and run in their path day and night, and toil, but can never come up to them.

II. Thus says the writer. I was dwelling quietly in my house and flourishing in my abode, prosecuting diligently my studies at Tunis, which is on the borders of ancient Carthage, when time removed me to the West, but did not withdraw its band from afficting me, and afterwards brought me to the famous city of Venice. And even here I had nothing to do, for the hand of time was still lifted up, and eialted over roe ; and its troubles and cares found me in the city, smote me, wounded me, ^and crushed me. And after about three months of sufferings, I left for a little while the furnace of my afflictions, for I was in a thirsty land. I said in the thoughts of my heart I will arise now and walk about the streets of the city. As I was walking in the streets, wandering quietly, behold God (through the exer- tions of an Israelite of the name of B. Chajim Alton, son of R. Moses Alton, who bestowed great kindness upon me — the Lord preserve and keep him) — sent a highly distinguished and pious Christian of the name of Daniel Bomberg to meet me, the Lord keep him and preserve his mind. He brought me to his printing-office and shewed me through his establishment, saying to me, turn in abide with me, for here thou shalt find rest for thy soul and balm for thy wound, as I want you to revise the books which I print, correct the mistakes, purify the style, and examine the works .till they are as refined silver and as purified gold.

384 Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. [J^7»

III. Although I saw that his desire was greater than my ability^ yet I thought that we must not refuse a superior. Still I told him that I did not know as much^ nor nearly as much [as he supposed] in accordance with what we find at the end of chap, ii. of Jerusalem Maccoth. *^ A man who knows only one book when he is in a place where he is respected for knowing two books^ is in duty bound to say, I only know one book/' And as I have no great intellect, how could I, being so low and insigni- ficant, undertake such great things from which, peradventure, mischief might ensue, seeing that R. Ishmael had already ex- horted a scribe in his days, '* My son take great care how thou doest thy work, for thy work is the work of heaven, lest thou drop or add a letter and thereby wilt be a destroyer of the whole world '^ 'comp. Sota, 20 a, and in other places), which is still more applicable to the present time, when the distinction be- tween the oral and written law has ceased, as both are now written down, and a mistake may describe the right wrong, and the wrong right. Therefore, I felt that I must not rely upon my own judgment, but examine two or three codices and follow them wherever they agree, and if they do not agree I must chose from among the readings those which appear to me unobjection- able, and sift them till I am convinced that they are correct and clear, especially as Rashbam^ and Rashba^ have already consulted in their theological decisions not to make emendations upon mere conjectures.

IV. And it came to pass after I had remained there for some time, doing ray work, the work of heaven, the Lord, blessed be his name, stirred up the spirit of the gentleman for whom I worked, and encouraged his heart to publish the twenty-four sacred books. Whereupon he said to me. Gird up thy loins now like a man, for I want to publish the twenty-four sacred books, provided they contain the commentaries, the Targums, the major and minor Massora,'' the Keri without the Kethiv, and the Kethw without the Keri/ plene and defective, and all the glosses of the

* Bashbam d' 3«ri is a contraction of the initials of TKD \1 Snow ^y\ Hahbi Samud hen Meier ^ grandson of Rashi and a very excellent commentator of the Bihie, horn ahout a.d. 1085, and died ahoat 1165. Comp. Alexander's edition of Kitto's Oydopadia^ a, v., lUuhbam.

« Raahba Wvcn is the acrostic of Dma« p no^ ^ai, Bahbi Solomon ben Abra- ham hen Adereth, a celehrated Talmudist and Kahhalist who was horn at Barce- lona, ahout A.D. 1235 and died 1310.

'A full description of the Rahhinic Bihle will be found in Alexander's edition of Kitto's CydopoidML of BibUcal Literaiure, under the article " Jacob B. Chajim."

• For an explanation of Keri without Kethiv, and Kethiv without Keri, see below, sections vi., xix., note.

1863.] Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. 385

scribes^ with appendices containing the major Massora according to the alphabetical order of the Aruch/ so that the reader may easily find what he wants. Like a bear bereft of its young ones he hastened to this work^ for he loved the daughter of Jacob. He summoned the workmen who were skilled in printings and each one with his tools in his hand at once betook himself to the work. Seeing then that the work was urgent, and that it would redound to the glory of Israel^ inasmuch as it will shew the nations and princes the beauty and excellence of our holy law^ for since it was committed to writing nothing has appeared like it ; and seeing, moreover, that its excellency was magnified in the eyes of the publishers, becoming as it were the chief comer-stone with him, I set my face to the fulfilling of his desire.

y. And now since many of the people, and among them are even some of the different classes of our learned contemporaries, who in their heart value neither Massora nor any of the methods of the Massora, say, What profit can be derived from the Mas- sora? and for this reason it has almost been forgotten and lost, therefore I shook my lap (or bestirred myself), as this afforded me the opportunity to do the work of the Lord, to shew the nations and the princes the value of the Massora ; for with- out it none of the sacred books, and particularly the Pentateuch, can be written with propriety and correctness.

VI. We purpose in the first place to reply to, and refute, some of the later great sages of blessed memory, who were nearer our time, and who maintained that the Keri and the Kethiv originated as follows. During the Babylonian captivity when the sacred books were lost and scattered about, and those wise men who were skilled in the Scriptures were dead, the men of the great synagogue found different readings in the sacred books; and in every place where they met with a doubtful and perplexing case they wrote down a word in the text, but did not put the vowels to it, or wrote it in the margin and left it out in the text, not being sure what they found. Thus for their words. But I am far from adopting their opinion, as I shall shew in the sequel^ and refute them from the Talmud.

/ The Aruch (Tn») " *he celebrated Rabbinic and Aramaic Lexicon of R. Nathan B. Yechiel, which was finished about a.d. 1 101, 1102. It was first pub- lished sometime before 1480 in square letters, in Pisauri 1517, then in Venice 1531 , bj Romberg, in beautiful square letters, and several times since. The best edition, hdweyer, is that of Landau, in five volumes, Pragpie, 1819—1824. Etheridge»s description of the time when this Lexicon was finished, as well as his remarks about the edUio princepa (Jerusalem and Tiberius, Longmans, 1856, pp. 284, etc.) are incorrect. Comp. Steinschneider, Cataloaus Lihr, Hebr, in Bibliothtca BodUiana, col. 2040—2043. Zunz, Notes on Asher's Edition of the Itirwrary of Bdbhi Benjamin of TudeUiy London, 1841, vol. ii., p. 18.

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. VI. * C C

886 Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. [Jvly,

YII. I ahall, secondly^ notice the differences which in many places exist between onr Talmud and the Massorites^ and ererj- where side with the hitter^ and state what we have learned from them.

YIII. I shall^ thirdly, refute the heretics who dared to accnae us of wilfully altering and changing passages in our holy law, as in the case of the eighteen emendations of the scribes, the TVam Sopherim, the Itur Sopherim, the Keri, and the Ksthiv/ and the order of the language.

IX. I shall, fourthly, explain the order which I have adopted, both in the minor and major Massora, to facilitate the reader.

X. Let me then, firstly, do battle with the sages of blessed memory, who lived nearer our time, for they spoke unseemly against our holy law, saying that the Keri and the Kethiv exhibit the doubts which the men of the great synagogue entertained* And these are their names and these their words.

XI. The Ephodi* in chap vii. of his grammar writes aa follows, '^ Ezra the priest, who was the most accomplished and the chief of the scribes, bestirred himself, and exerted all his powers to rectify what was wrong, and in like manner acted all the scribes who followed him. They corrected all the sacred books as much as possible, in consequence of which they have been preserved to us perfect in the commandments, the chapters, the vmrses, the words, letters, plene, defective, the abnormal and normal phrases and the like, and for this reason are denominated scribes. To this efiect they have also composed treatises which are the books of the Massora, and made the Keri and Kethiv, in every passage in which they met with some obliterations and confusion, not being sure what the precise reading was.^' Thus far are his words.

XII. But what surprises me still more is, that so holy a man as Kimchi^ should also utter similar things in bis introduction to the earlier prophets. The following is his language, "It appears that these words (t. e., the Keri and KethivJ originated because the sacred books were lost and scattered about during the Babylonian captivity, and the sages who were skilled in the

r For an explanation of these terms, see below, $ XIX., XXVII., XLIII.

* Ephodi nBH=T]H 18 a contraction of the initials of pn irwno tk / ^ro- pkiath Durany the signatare of the celebrated polemical writer againtt C3iria- tianitj, who was called Isaac ben Mobcb Ba-Lain, and flouriahod a.d. 1391—1409. For particulars of this writer see Alexander's edition of Kitto's CffeUp^edia, «.9. Prophiath Doran.

' The Kimchi here referred to is Daoid Kimchi, also called JSedak p'ms^TrV*^ 'nop (bom a.d. 1160, died about 1235), who wrote commentaries on nearly the whole of the Old Testament, the famous Hebrew Grammar called Vibo, and th« Leidcon entitled Dvwfr* and who may be regarded as the taaoher of Habrew of both Jews and Christians throughout Europe.

1868.] Introduciim to the Rabbinic Bible. 387

Scriptures were dead. Whereupon the men of the. great syna*- gogue,' who restored the law to its former state^ found different readings in the books^ and adopted those which the majority of copies had^ because they^ according to their opinion^ exhibited the true readings. In some places they wrote down one word in the text but did not punctuate it^ or noted it in the margin but omitted it from the text^ whilst in other places they inserted one reading in the margin and another in the text.'' Thus far is his language.

XIII. Don Isaac Abrayanel/ the memory of the righteous be blessed, refutes them in his introduction to Jeremiah in this manner, and these are his words: — ''The opinion wherein all these wise men agree, and their conclusions, are far from being mine. For how can I believe with my heart, and speak with my lips, that Ezra the scribe found the book of the law of Ood, and the books of his holy prophets, in an unsettled state through obliterations and confusions ? Is not the scroll of the law in which one letter is omitted illegal? How much more must it be 80 through the Keri and the Kethiv, which are found in the law, since, according to the Keri, many letters are wanting in the law, etc.?''

XIY. Again he says, and these are his words, '' Behold, I ask these men if, according to their prevailing opinion, the Keri and the Kethiv originated because they [Ezra and his associates] found various readings, and Ezra was not sure which was the right one, put down both readings, one in the margin and the other in the text, if it be so, why should we, in explaining the Scriptures, always follow the Keri and not the Kethiv ? And why should Ezra, who was himself doubtful, always put the points in accordance with the Keri, and not with the Kethiv ? And if he meant [to give preference to the Keri'\ he ought to have inserted the Keri in the text, as it is the true one and agrees with the points, and put the Kethiv in the margin because he did not approve of it.

XV. " Moreover, if the obliterations and confusion to which the books were subject in consequence of the captivity gave rise to it [f . e., the Keri and the Kethiv] , it ought to occur accident- ally in the passage which happened to be obliterated, or in which [a doubtful rea£ng] was found. Whereas thou wilt find in the

law of God in the section "^ ^V that the Kethiv is D^'^SS t'»

J Abrayanel, or Abarbanel, the fiunons Btatesman, pbiloBopher, theologuui, and commentator of Spain, was bom in Lisbon in 1437, and died at Venice in 1508. For a list of bis works on Biblical literatnre, see Alexander's edition of Kitto's OjfdopcBdia, a.v. Abravanel.

* Tbis is the name of one of the Sabbatic lesson, comprising Gen. xii. 1—

c c 2

388 Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. i^^Jj

and the Keri is D'^MSS '^'^D, and the same thing occurs a second time. Now could this obliteration or confusion always occur in this word ? The same is the case with all, e. g. mW* which is written twenty-two times "^W, and occurs only once as

plene in Deut. xxii. 19; so also D'^TIDXn, which is always the

Ken, and tJie Kethiv is DniPHO, and the Ketn n3Sa'Cr% whilst

the Kethiv is always HDlID'tt^. It is evident, therefore, that the thing is not as these sages thought, and may the Lord forgive them V

XVI. Abravanel, therefore, submits that the true account of the matter is as follows : — '^ Ezra the scribe and his associates found the books of the law entire and perfect, but before be- taking himself to make the vowel points, the accents and the division of verses, he examined the text, when he found words which, according to the genius of the language and the design of the narrative, appeared to him strange. Hence he concluded that this must have originated from one of the two causes. Either the writer, according to the degree of inspiration vouch* safed unto him, conveyed by these anomalous expressions some of the mysteries of the law, and therefore, he [Ezra] did not venture to expunge anything from the sacred books. Having thus perceived that it was written by the highest wisdom, and that there was one reason or another why the words were some- times defective or plene, and why the phrases were anomalous, he left them in the text as they were written, and put the Keri in the margin, which simply explains the said anomaly in accord- ance with the genius of the language, and the design of the narrative ; and of this nature are all the Keris and the Kethivs in the Pentateuch. In like manner when Ezra found the word

D*^71DV1 which denotes heights^ and which conveys no meaning

to us, he put in the margin the word D**'1*lHlO emerods;

and this is also the case with the word Tlj^yOf^,' the root of

xvii. 27. According to an ancient oustom, the Jews to the present day divide the Pentateach into fifty-four sections, to provide a lesson for each Sabhath of those years which, according to the Jewish chronology, have fifty-fonr Sabbaths,

and thus read through the whole book of the law (mn) in the coarse of every

year. Each of these Sabbathic sections or sidra (MnnrD), as it is called by the Jews, has a special name which it derives from tne first or second word' with which it commences ; and Jewish writers, when they quote a passage from the Pentateuch, instead of saying it occurs in such and such a chapter and verse, give, as in the instance before us, the name of the Sabbathic section, because this practice obtained prior to the division of the Bible into chapters and verses. A fuU description of these Sabbathic lessons, as well as of the manners and customs connected therewith, is given in Alexander's edition of Kitto's CyeUh /Mn^ta, art. " Haphtara."

1863.] Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. 889

which (7Iltt^) is used with regard to a qaeen ; he therefore put

in the margin n33D'C^'^. Or, secondly, Ezra may have been of opinion that these anomalous letters and words were owing to the carelessness of the sacred speaker or writer; and this care- lessness on the part of the prophet was like an error which pro- ceeded from a prince. Ezra had, therefore, to explain such words in harmony with the connexion, and this is the origin of the Keri which is found in the margin, as this holy scribe feared to touch the words which were spoken or written by the Holy Ghost. These remarks he made on his own account in order that he might explain such letters and words, and on that account put them in the margin to indicate that this gloss is his own. And there can be no doubt that they [i. e., Ezra and his asso- ciates] received the text in such a state from the prophets, and the sages who have preceded them. Hence if you examine the numerous Keris and Kethivs which occur in Jeremiah, and look into their connexion, you will find that all of them are of this nature, viz., that Jeremiah wrote them through mistakes and carelessness, etc. Abravanel has a great deal more upon this subject in his introduction to Jeremiah : ^' Hitherto [he says further on] we have shewn that the Keri with the Kethiv, and the Keri without the Kethiv, are simply explanations. This is also the nature of the Kethiv without the Keri, When Ezra saw that words were put down which have no meaning, according to the simple sense of the words, he did not point them to indicate thereby that they are not to be read. From this you learn that the books, in which there are many such instances, shew that the speaker or writer was deficient in the manner of speaking, or in his knowledge of orthography. Hence you find in Jere- miah alone eighty-one Keris and Kethivs, and in the books of Samuel, which Jeremiah wrote, the number of Keris and Kethivs rises to one hundred and thirty-three ; . . . whilst in the Penta- teuch, which proceeded from the mouth of the Lord, though it is four times as large as the book of Jeremiah, there are com- paratively few, only sixty-five Keris and Kethivs" Thus far his words. He, in like manner, counts how many Keris and Kethivs occur in every book of the Bible, in order to shew which of the prophets was more conversant with the laws of the language. But all his decisions upon this subject are far from my notions, as I shall presently shew in refuting him.

XVII. The strictures, however, which he made upon Kimchi and Ephodi are good and apposite, and I shall also refute these men in mv refutations of AbravanePs decisions, since both his decisions and the opinions of Kimchi and Ephodi are mere con- jectures, whereas we rely solely upon the Talmud, which we

890 Introduction to the J^bbimc Bible. July,

acknowledge ; for the heart of its sages was as large as the door of the temple : they are truth, and their words are truth.

XVIII. Now I suhmit that Don Abravanel is perfectly right in saying that Ezra the scribe, and his associates, found the books of the law entire and perfect just as they were originally written.

XIX. But what he says in his first hypothesis, beginning with the words, " Either the writer, according to the d^;ree of inspiration vouchsafed unto him, conveyed by these anomalous expressions some of the mysteries of the law,' etc., till " he put the Keri in the margin, which simply explains the said anomaly in accordance with the genius of the language^' [compare §XVI.], all this is not correct. For in the Talmud we learu most distinctly, '^ B. Ika b. Abaja said in the name of B. Hannadj who repeated it in the name of Bab, What is meant by

[Neh. viii. 8] ? [Beply]. The words "they read in book in the Law of God,* mean the Hebrew text, the expression 'ttniDO

denotes the Targum, h^if D^tt^ the division of the verseSj whilst M"^pQa 12*^1*^ signifies, according to some, the dividing accents (D'^yiO ^^0?!)$ and according to others the Massors. B. Isaac said, the pronunciation of certain words according to the scribes (D'HDID M'IpQ), the emendations of the scribes (D^S'ID *>1toy), the Ken without the Kethiv (p'^fO vh\ l(np), and the Kethiv without the Keri (p'Hp vh\ p'^riD) are laws of Moses from Mount Sinai. The Mikra Sopherim {ir\pQ D'nmD) shews how to read D^20, CKi\If, Y^M/ the Itwr Sopherim D^D^D 1TW» is shewn in iniSyn "^HM [Gen. xviii. 5], ^n •^rrM [Josh. ii. 16], P)DMn nHM [Numb. xii. 14], D^rinj inM D-nttr MTfp [Ps. Ixviii. 26], ^M "niTO ^njrtt"

' That is to say, smce there were no vowel points to indicate when it was pronounced f>{ and when y^ (in pause) ; or to shew that D^ and cncfp have simply dual forms without oeinff duals ; the Sopherim pointed out how these and many other words are to he read.

"* There is a difference of opinion as to what is meant by WWJ 'rvtn and the examples here adduced to illustrate it. According to Bashi on this passage it denotes the idiomatic construction fixed by the Sopherim, which necessitates the writing of mssD Tw and not "rw Ttuyn, and is called *tnc» because it is an improvement of or ornament to the style ; according to others, this ornament of slyle (crro •WD'y) consists in using the word fiH at all, since it is superfluous in all these instances given in the Talmud, as we could very well say, Dn» rerp msffm dmVtbo, fpvt\ d«o» repom •vcn, tnxo, whilst according to lAe^ncdk, aa given

1868.] Introduction to the Rabbinie Bible. 891

[Ibid., Mxvi- 7], the Keri without the Kethiv i\X^rO vh\ pvp)

is seen in mO [2 Sam. viii. 8]; ttT^M [Ibid., xvi. 28]; tTkO [Jer. |xxxi. 88J; rh [Ibid., 1. 29]; riM [Kuth ii. 11]; '^Sm [Ibid., iii. 5, 17] ; these words are read (P'np) without being mritten in the text (p^nD vh)), and the Kethiv without the Keri

iynp vh) ip^rxn) is seen in M3 [2 Kings v. 18] ; n«1 [Jer. xxxu. 11] ; jrv [Ibid., li. 8]; HKSl [Ezek. xlviii. 16] ; DM [Kuth iii. 12] ; these words are in the text, but are not read [Nedarim, 87 &.].'' Thus far the Talmud. The expression HM

connected with mSDil> some say occurs in Deut. t. 81, but ia not true, since it is not found in our copies ; nor is it mentioned in the works of the M assora. The Massora, indeed, does enu* merate all the above-mentioned examples [as given in the Tal- mud], and even many others, but does not give JIH connected

with mSDn, it only gives DM as connected with tt^DSH, which is found in Jeremiah in connexion with the history of Zedekiah [xxxii. 11]. And Bashi* of blessed memory also says that

rnSOn nM occurs in Jeremiah. As for Itur Sopherim {*y\tSif

D^HDID) see below in my reply to the heretics [§ XLIII.] .

XX. From this then it is evident that the whole of it is a law of Moses from Mount Sinai, and that Ezra the scribe did not put the Keri in the margin to explain anomalous passages ; nothing appeared anomalous to Ezra, nor did he meet with any uncertainties and confusions; for the whole of it is a law of Moses from Mount Sinai, as stated above.

XXI« Moreover, I object to AbravanePs assertion that

when " Ezra found the word D'^71D3Qi which denotes heights, and which conveys no meaning to us, he put in the margin the

word D'n^^ntd, emerods ; and this is also the case with the word

TXh^tOJ^i the root of which piltt^) is used with regard to a queen,

he therefore put in the margin n333tt>'*'' [vide supra, § XVI.).

XXII. This statement is not correct, since we are distinctly told in the Talmud : " Our sages submit. All the verses wherein

below in d XLIII., it is the removal of a superfluous i which has crept into the text in all these instances through a yitiated proyincial pronunciation. This is

the general opinion of critics as to the meaning of croiD "vhdv. Compare Geiger, Uniehr^ vma Uebenetzung der BibeL Breslau : 1857. p. 251, etc.

" MuM is that celebrated commentator of the Old Testament and the Tal- mud, who is commonly but erroneously called Jarchi. The name Beuhi ^"xn

is a contraction of ^pny mho 'V\ Rabbi Solomon Isaki or Itzchaki^R. Solomon hen lioac. He was bom at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040, where he also died, July 26th, 1105.

392 Iniroduction to the Rabbinic Bible. [July,

are written indecent expressions^ decent expressions are read in their stead, e.g,, n:D3^ instead of TO^^attT' [Dent, xxviii. 80; Isa. xiii. 16; Jer. iii. 2; Zech. xiv. 2]'; OmniD instead of ah^Qy^ [Deut. xxviii. 27; 1 Sam. v, 6, 9, 12; vi, 4, 5, 17]; D'^an'DT instead of tJ'Ji'nn [2 Kings vii. 25 ; xviii. 27 ; Isa. xxxvi. 12] ; OnMIS instead of Drmm [2 Kings xviii. 27 ; Isa. xxxvi. 12] ; DTthT) '^'^ instead of Drr3*nZr "nm [2 Kings

xviii. 27; Isa. xxxvi. 12]; PiMkTloh instead of DMTrtoh [2 Kings X. 27, compare Megilla 25 b] .'' And Bashi of blessed

memory submits that the expression TOv^'fi^ is used for the cohabitation of dogs, as it is written in Nehemiah [ii. 6], where

hSQf is used in this sense. The Aruch too explains it in like man- ner under the words p^'ST, whereas n^MtZ^^ denotes the coha- bitation of people who are legally married. Hence we see that it

is not as Abravanel maintains ; that D'H'iniO did not originate

from our ignorance of the word D^^TIDV, and that 73tl^ is not used in connexion with a queen. Compare Rosh Ha-Shana, 4 a. XXIII. I am not going to reply to the words of Abravanel in his second hypothesis, viz., " that the anomalous expressions are owing to the deficiency of the writer in his knowledge of Hebrew or orthography,^' for I am amazed that such a thing should have proceeded from a man like him of blessed memory. How can any one entertain such an idea in his mind, that the prophets were deficient in such matters ? If it really were so, then Abravanel of blessed memory had a greater knowledge of Hebrew than they ; and for the life of me I cannot believe this. And if they really did inadvertently commit an error, as Abra- vanel insinuates, how is it that the prophet or the inspired speaker did not correct it himself? Is it possible that eighty- one errors should occur in the Book of Jeremiah, and one hundred and thirty-three in the Book of Samuel, which Abra- vanel himself has counted, and has shewn was written by Jere- miah ? Can we entertain the idea that a prophet, of whom it is said, " Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations'' [Jer. i. 5], should have fallen into such errors ? In conclusion, it appears that Abravanel of blessed memory had not seen the Talmud on this subject ; for according to the Talmud there is neither light nor any glimpse of light in what he submits. It may, however, be that the Don of blessed memory entertained this strange opinion, pot because he was unacquainted with the Talmud, but because

1863.] Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. 393

he followed in this respect the steps of the great Rabbi^ Rambam^ of blessed memory (More NebochimJ, to shew his ability to account for it without the Talmud.

XXI. If an objector would urge^ " Behold we do not find in the Talmud any more Keris and Kethivs, Kethivs without Keris, Itur Sopherim, etc, besides those enumerated above, whereas the Massora gives those and a great many others, I am therefore compelled to tell thee, that in the last-mentioned cases we are obliged to account for them in the manner of Abra- vanel of blessed memory ; since I believe that all those which are mentioned in the Talmud are a law of Moses from Mount Sinai, but not the others.'*

XXY. Now though it is true that the Massora does indeed counjb all those which are mentioned in the Tract Sopherim, and a great many more, yet this presents no insurmountable diffi- culty. For we learn in the Mishna Sopherim, vi. 4, " R. Simon b, Lakish says three codices [of the Pentateuch] were found in

the court of the temple, one of which read p^O, another "'IDIlDyt*

and the third M*^!!. In the one case it was written Tl^M T\VJ2

DTp [Deut. xxxiii. 27], and in the other two niiytt, the reading

of the two was therefore declared valid, whereas that of the one

invalid. In one copy again, 7M1'0^ ^21 "tfiltOS^t 7M1 was found

[in Ex. xxiv. 11], and in the other two '^T'^SM 7M1 : the reading of the two was declared valid, and that of the one invalid.'^'' Now if there be any foundation in what Don Abravanel said, that the reason why Ezra did not venture to omit anything from the books of God is, that he considered them to be written by divine wisdom, this cannot escape one of the two alternatives. Either Ezra knew that they were all a law of Moses from Mount Sinai, or that they were doubtful readings, as Kimchi and Ephodi maintained. And if you say that he did know whether they were a law of Moses from Sinai, why did he not expunge the reading of the one copy, and adopt that of the majority of codices, seeing that in the case of the three codices found in the court of the temple, they followed the majority of copies? But you will perhaps say that the MSS. were equally divided, and that he could therefore omit nothing, but was obliged to put the Keri in the margin. Then let such an one shew me how it

« Eamham 0*30% is a contraction of the initials of pQi*D p TW0 1 B, Mo8S» &en Maimon also called Maimonides^ one of the most extraorainary Jews who lived since the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. He was bom March 30th, 1135, in Cordova, and died December 13th, 1204.

' The whole of this passage in the Talmud is elaborately discussed by Geiger, Uraekrift und Uebersetzung der BibeL Breslau, 1857. pp. 232—244.

894 Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. U^Yf

is possible to read the Pentateuch^ when [according to the Tal« mud] we must not read a single letter which is not written in the text. How can it enter into one^s mind that we should read the Keri which Ezra the scribe put down to explain the anomalous text, and leave oat the textual reading which waa written by the finger of God ? We are therefore bound to be« lieve that all of them are a law of Moses from Sinai. Now the same question was put to Rashba of blessed memory^

" How can we read D'HIPQ instead of 0*^7105^2, and nSiSttT^

instead of nS^Jtl^, which are not in the text V When Rashba of blessed memory answered as follows : —

XXVI. " As regards thy question^ ' Seeing that in reading the law one must not change even a single letter ; how can the

Prelector read H^SD'tt^ when the text has tiy^HO)^, or substitate another reading in any other passage for what is in the text, seeing that all the Kethivs in the law are according to the Mas- sora, and not according to the Keri ?'

XXYIL ^* The answer is, that it is a law of Moses from Sinai, as it is written in Tract Nedarim [37 b"], 'the pronunciation of

certain words according to the scribes (D^HDID M"^|30), the emen- dations of the scribes (D'HEflD lltOV), the Kethivs without the Keri, and the Keri without the Kethivs, etc., are all a law of Moses from Sinai.' '' From this it is evident that the interro- gator did not know that it was a law, since Rashba informed him that it was so; and now seeing that it is a law of Moses from Sinai, there can be no more any question about it. See moreover that even Rashba of blessed memory supported him- self therein on the above quotation from Nedarim, in spite of there being a great many more Keris and Kethivs than those enumerated in the Talmud, as already stated before. If these were doubtful readings, why were they not enumerated with the three doubtful readings in Sopherim [vi. 4] ? Seeing then that there are no more than these^ it is evident that the others were not doubtful, for if they were doubtful they [the Sopherim] would in these, as in the former instances, have followed the majority of MSS., and not have put them in the margin, as we have stated above.

XXVIII, There is then no more difficulty. As to Don AbravanePs remark, '' there is no doubt that they [i.e., Ezra and his associates] have received it [i.e., the Keri] from the prophets and the sages of bygone days.'^ To this I reply, choose one of the two positions. If you say that they have received it from the prophets and sages of bygone days, then this cannot escape one of the two alternatives. Either it [the Keri] was a

1863.] Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. 895

law of Moses from Sinai, and they [the prophets and sages] told him [Ezra] that it [the Keri'\ ought to be so, or they did not tell him that such and such readings were a law of Moses from Sinai. If they have not told him that such and such a reading is a law of Moses from Sinai, then he clearly knew it already that it [the marginal reading] ought to be so [in the correct one]^ since it was received so from the prophets. And if it be so^ what then does Abravanel mean by saying that the sacred scribe was afraid to touch any of the words which were spoken by the Holy Ohost ? Moreover there is another objection [to be urged] . If it be so that they have received it so from the prophets and sages of bygone days, why have not the prophets and sages themselves corrected it ? We are therefore bound to conclude that the Keri and the Kethiv are both a law of Moses from Sinai, as we have proved above from the Talmud [Nedarim 87 6.]

XXIX. As to what Abravanel said in his first hypothesis, ^' that the writer, according to the degree of inspiration vouch- safed unto him, conveyed by these anomalous expressions some of the mysteries of the law, and therefore Ezra did not venture to expunge from the sacred books,^' this is certainly true, as the great Rabbi Bamban' of blessed memory, the chief of the later Kabbalists, has propounded it in the Introduction to his Com^ mentary on the Pentateuch (vide in loco). And for this very reason I am all the more astonished at Don Abravanel of blessed memory, how he could afterwards declare that it is a doubtful matter, ascribing in his second hypothesis carelessness to Jere- miah, because of the anomalous expressions in Itt^U J11K1

TTTS iTDkW [Jerem, ii. 24], the Keriin the margin being rrt&M fem.y as is evident from the usage of the language. Whereas in fact this is one of the mysteries of the law connected with the Levirate law, and the initiated know it.

XXX. Thus we learn from these and similar arguments that the Keri without the Kethiv and the Kethiv without the Keri, and all the Massoretic statements, are a law of Moses from Sinai, and not as the afore-mentioned sages propound, which is evident from the Talmud [Nedarim 37 i] quoted above.

XXXI. We do indeed find in many places that the Talmud

f Samhan ]"ycn is the acrostic of pn p ttbtd ^*i Bahbi Motes hen Nachman^ also called Nachmanides^ and Nachmani, and Moses Oirondi. This distinguished Tahnndist, Kabbalist, and commentator ^ was bom abont 1195, and died about 1270. His Commentary on the Fentateuehf to which allaston is here made, has recently been republished in The Pentateuch with the Hahbinie Commentaries, Fire vols. 4to. Vienna, 1859. For his other works connected with Biblical literatore, see Alexander's Edition of Kitto's Cydopcediay art. Nacbmanides.

396 Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. [July,

differs from the Massora^ as we see in Tract Nidda [38 a] where

Oni« Mttnam [Levit. iv. lO] is written iWTV) without the 1-

XXXII. Tossafoth'' thereupon remarks, ''It is strange that the reading of the Massora is plene/^ and concludes that the Talmud in fact does sometimes differ from the Massora, as we

find in Sabbath [55 6] on the sons of Eli, where D'*'^'^13?0 [1 Sam. ii. 24] is quoted. And this is the remark of the

Talmud: [query] "Is not the reading D'^TIX^? Whereupon

R. Hannah b. B. Ishmael said the reading is D*^^iyQ-"

XXXIII. Now Rashi of blessed memory remarks on this passage, " I cannot understand how this sage is here cited, for I am of opinion that the whole passage is spurious, and that he never said it, since the reading of the most trustworthy codices

is D^^^^^^lVD plene, and since it is not mentioned in the great

Massora, where all the words in which the '^ is written (2**r0)

but not read i^p), are enumerated and summed up. Besides

the whole question is irrelevant, as the meaning of 0*^*^35^ is not to transgress, but to circulate a report, and this is what Eli said, ' No, my son, it is not a good report which I hear the people

of God circulate about you ;* D'^^^'^IVQ is the plural, and refers to

mrr Dy, and not to ^h^ *^33, who were the transgressors them- selves, and did not make others to transgress.'^ Thus for his language.

XXXIY. Tossafoth again comments thus upon the passage; and this is its language : '' Our Talmud differs from our copies

of the Bible, which read D'^'^^U^, and we find a similar difference in the Talmud Jerushalmi on Samson, where it has, 'And he judged

Israel (D^'SD'^M) forty years ;' whereas our copies of the Bible

** Tossafoth mEXTVi denotes those additions or supplementary glosses to Rashi's Commentary on the Tahmtd which are found along with the commentary of Rashi in every edition of the Talraad. The disciples of JUchi finding that the exposi- tions of their master might be extended and improved, set about to oontinne his work of exposition immediately after his death, filling up every gap, and using up every scrap, which their immortal teacher left. Their reverence for bim, however, was so great that they would not put down their opinions in an inde- pendent manner, but denominated them nriDDin additions, and hence they derived the name Ibssafoths. The first Tossafoths consisted chiefly of Rashi's own rela- tions, his two sons-in-law, R. Meier b. Samuel and R. Jdhudah b. Nathan, called

by way of abbreviation Ribam {] an=]n3 p rmrr 'an), his three grandsons R. Isaac, R. Samuel, and R. Jacob Tam, sons of R. Meier, who are respectively called from their initials Mibam (D'an=TMD p prrs* ^), Bashham (D'a«n=T» imo p binDO) and R, Tom, and lastly R. Isaac ben Asher of Speier, called Riba i»vy=^ym b prw *n), also a relative of Rashi's. Comp. Graetz, Gesehichte der Jvden, vol. vi., Leipzig, 1861, p. 170, and vol. vii., Leipzig, 1863, p. 129, etc.

1863.] Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. 897

read (D'Htt^) twenty years [Judges xvi. 31]; hence it seems that the Philistines feared him [Le., Samson] twenty years after his death/'

XXXV. To me it appears^ however, that there is no diffi- culty in it ; for what the Talmud speaks about Samson refers to the Midrashic interpretation, viz., " Why is the verse, that he judged Israel twenty years, repeated twice ? B. Acha answered, From this we see that the Philistines feared him [i.e., Samson] twenty years after his death just as they did twenty years before it, and this makes forty years.'' Hence the Talmud does not say. Why is it written in the text, " he judged Israel forty years ?" but simply " he judged forty years," that is according to the Midrash. And now everything comes out right when thou lookest into it.

XXXVI. Now I wonder at Rashi, who was versed in the Massora and adopted the Massoretic conclusions, as we have seen in the above quotation from the Tract Sabbath [55 b] on the sons of Eli, where he argues from the Massora against R. Hanna, and concludes that the said passage in the Talmud is spurious — that he should in various places entertain opinions contrary to those of the Massora. Thus, for instance, he writes

is his Commentary on Gen, xxv. 6, "The reading is Dtt^Ubo

without the ^, to shew that it was only one concubine, i.e., Hagar, who was identical with Kethora, according to the opinion of Bereshith Rabba." He also remarks on Numbers vii. 1, that

the reading is nbs and not ni73 ; whereas we are most dis- tinctly told in the Massora that D'^^lb'^D in Gen. xxv. 6 and in Esther ii. 9, is plene in both cases, and the minor Massora

tells us that ni73 in Numb. vii. 1 is plene.

XXXVII. And again Rashi remarks in his Commentary on

the Pentateuch, the reading is 1^Y\X0 [Dent. vi. 9] in order to shew that even if a door has only one post, it requires a mezu^ zah.* Now I wonder at this, for we find in the Massora that it

is written with a 1 between the Y and the Jl- Rashi, however, adopts the opinion of Rabbi Meier in Menachoth, 34 a, where we learn, " R. Papa happening to call at the house of Bar Samuel saw there a door which had only one post on the left side, and

• nrno with the Jews denotes the piece of parchment on which is written Dent. Ti. 4 — 9; xi. 13—21, which they regard as containing the injunction to inscribe on the door-posts the words of the law. This slip of yellum thus written upon is then enclosed in a cylindrical tube of lead, cane, or wood, and to the present day is nailed to the right door-post of eyery door. A detailed de-

898 Iniroduciion to the Rabbinic Bible. [July,

yet had a mezuzah, and asked^ According to whom is this ? Ac- cording to Rabbi Meier [was the reply]. Whereupon it was asked, Where is this remark of Rabbi Meier? [Reply] We find that a house which has a door with only one post. Rabbi Meier says it ought to have a niezuzah, but the sages say it ought not. [Query] What is the reason of the sages? [Reply] Because

the text has riWtt^ in the plural [thus shewing that two posts were required. Query.] And what is the reason of Rabbi

Meier? [Reply.] For we learn that it is tnf\tf2 plural, whence

I see that it cannot be less than two ; and when mtllD is again mentioned in another verse where it is superfluous, it is to teach

us that it is 'nsn ^n« ^11") ; and every va*^ -tn« 'Hn'l is de- signed to diminish [the number of posts] so as to have a me^ zuzah. Thus says Rabbi Ishmael, etc. [upon which Tossafoth remarks] and accordingly it would appear that the reading is

Jl*)TltQ plene with two Vavs, and not defective with oue Vdv; and this is the remark of Rabbi Ishmael, who says that the text is of paramount importance, t.e., that we must explain it according to the written text just as we find in Sanhedrim, 4 b,

in the case of HIDID^* But the fact is that we cannot infer anything from this; since we find Rabbi Akiva, who 'maintains that the marginal reading is of primary consideration, i.e., that

we must be guided by the Keri as in the case of HIQIDO, yet he himself admits that text is of paramount importance.^^

XXXYIII. Again, in Sabbath, 103 b, we find Rabbi Jehudah b.

Bethira says: — "The Scriptures used DrPDDDI [Numb. xxix. 19]

with regard to the second day of the feast of tabemaclesi iTSDT)

ibid.f verse 31] with regard to the sixth day, and DtOSt2^Q3 ibid,, verse 33] with regard to the seventh day,^ whence we

obtain the final D [of the first], the > [from the second]^ and the

final D [from the third word]; and have therein an intimation from the law about the ceremony of pouring out water on this festival. Whereas Rashi, of blessed memory, reads [Succa, 46 6]

DlOQtt^D in connexion with the eighth day of the festival [i. e.,

at the end of verse 87], and 10Q'&^3 in connexion with the seventh day [t. e., at the end of verse 33] .* Now Tossafoth

' These words also ocear in oonnexion with the other days of the feast, bat without the letters in qnestion; and as, aocording to the Talmudio laws of exegesis, no superflaous letter is oyer used in the Bible without ita having a recondite meaning (compare Ginsbnrg's Oommentanf an JSedenaties. LoagmaB,

1861, p. 80, etc.), these three letters hare been combined into era water.

" The passage must have been altered since the day of the Tossafoth, and made conformable to the present text of the Bible, as in my copy of the Talmud there is no difference between Rashi and the Massoretic text.

E

1868.] Iniroducium to the Rabbinic Bible. 899

criticizes Kashi, and these are the words of Tossafoth : '^ We

read DtODtt^S on the seventh day^ as is evident from Taamith, 2 by and from the larger Massora^ and not as Rashi^ who reads it on the eighth Asj" Thus far the remark of Tossafoth. More- over^ in Menachoth^ 34 b, Rasbi^ of blessed memory, does not animadvert upon the Tsdmud, which reads differently from the correct codices^ as he animadverted in connexion with the sons of Eli [vide supra, § XXXIII.] ^ and yet these are the words in MenacQoth: ^'The sages propound, 'Babbi Ishmael said in

tlBtSn^h nsXHtSn nOWtO?, the four compartments [in the phy- lactery] are indicated.^'" Thus far the words of the Talmud. In the correct codices, however, as well as in the book Tagi, the

reading is as follows, DSl^tch [in Deut. vi. 8; xi. 18] and

nSlOllOT) [Exod. xiii. 16], but there is no 1 between the Q and the ]1 ; yet I myself have seen an ancient codex in which Deut.

xi. 18 was also written ]lDt01tDv> with a *) after the first tD. Still we may rely upon the authors of the Tossafoth, since they saw the book Tagi, and know more thoroughly about plene and defeC' tioe than we know. The Tossafoth on Menachoth observes as

follows:** '^In Deut. vi. 8 and xi. 18 the reading is VBtSxht and

in Exod. xiii. 16 HDlOltOT), according to the correct codices, but there is no 1 between the Q and fl,^^ and asks, ** How then can a dual be made out of it V If we could apply to it the

exegetical rule pttTflT) ^•'D'^DIDI j'^jniJ it would be all right, but we find it only applied to letters at the end and beginning

of words, but not in the middle. Thus, for instance, D1T2 llpTl

ion [Zebachim, 24 i], the first D is taken over from DTD to TOn

[making it TDHTD Ql] ; so also in Baba Bathra, 111. In DHim

inMtZr*? ^rhvM nM [Numb, xxvii. 11], the 1 is taken from the

end of inbro^ and the 7 from the beginning of ITMtZ^^, and

* The word rran occurs only three times (Exod. xiii. 16; Dent. yi. 8;

xi. 18); in two instances it has no i (Deat. yi. 8 ; xi. 18), and in the third (Exod.

xiii. 16), there is a i after the first ID, {.e., nDsmo ; hence R. Ishmael regards it as a doal, and makes of the three words four^ to obtain the four compartments in the phylacteries. As the limits of a note do not permit of a detailea desorip* tion of these compartments, we must refer to Alexander's edition of Kitto's OydopcedAa^ art " Fhylateries," for it.

* As Jacob ben Chajim has somewhat abbreviated this Quotation ttom Tossafoth, and made it difficult thereby to translate, I have translated the whole of it as found in the Talmud.

400 Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. [^^^7^

made into a separate word t^, «. e., *)h V^fcW ]17H3 DI1HJV

To this Rabbi Taam replies, the first 1 of HDIOIttTI [t. €., the copulative] is taken from the beginning of the word and put

between the 11 and Q, thus reading fl*lQl01toS> as we find it in Baba Meziah [54 A.] on v'?y MTf^rOn ^D*n [Lev. xxvii. 27], where the 1 is taken from ^D*n, converted into the allied letter ^ and put between the n and 1 of V^*'ttr»Dn, thus reading

y^ty^f^jy^H* But Tossafoth objects to this explanation on the ground that the Talmud asks further on, '' If this can be done, let us apply it also to the things devoted to the sanctuary,

where it is written ^Ti n^niT^n ^D'n [Lev. xxvii. 15] ?" And the answer is, " Even if you take away the 1 from ^D*^, and put

it to the end of TS^^Sy^GHy it would only be IJl^'tty^n [making no plural] *' But now [if Rabbi Taam's principle of applying

this exegetical rule be right] we might put the 1 in the middle

of the word, so as to obtain ni'^tlTTSn plural. It is therefore evident that we never put the letters except at the end of a word, as is the case with all the instances which I have adduced.^' Thus for the words of Tossafoth. Rashi, of blessed memory, too quotes the same principle [in his commentary on Baba Meziah, 54 b], that we only add to the beginning and end of words, but that in the middle the letters must remain as they are, vide in loco. And we cannot urge in such a case that we cut up the Scriptures with too sharp a knife, as it is urged iu all other places, because it cannot be called cutting except when the words are displaced, as it is remarked there [i. e., in Baba

Bathra, 111] in connexion with the verse Tn7n3 HM Dnn31 [Numb, xxvii. 11] against Rabbi Abja, who wanted to do it, and Rabba said to him, '^ Thou cuttest the Scriptures with a sharp knife.*' Thus far his reply.

XXXIX. It appears difficult to me, that when we are dis- tinctly told in the Talmud [Megilla, 25 i], ''The sages say that all passages which are written in the law in indecent expressions,

are rendered decent by the Keri, as, for instance, rT3!l3tt^ instead

of TXh^Hy^ [Dent, xxxviii. 18; Isa. xiii. 16; Jer. iii. 2; Zech.

xiv. 2]; U^TS^ instead of uh\^V [Deut. xxviii. 27; 1 Sam. V. 6, 9, 12; vi. 4, 5, 17]; the Massora should only give six

instances where the Kethiv is D*''?)Dy, and the Keri D^1PRD> and omit the one which occurs in 1 Sam. vi. 12; and, indeeid, all our best codices do the same. Now I cannot account for

1863.] IfUroductian to the Rabbimc Bible. 401

this in any other way except in the manner already stated above^ viz.^ that the Talmud is sometimes at variance with the Massora.

XL. In Bereehith Rabba, on WMn m)if IIDmS [Psalm

cv. 22J Rabbi Idai remarks ike Kethiv is YW without a *> [t. e., in the singular]^ and that it refers to Potiphera. Now the diffi- culty is that we do not find this ^ omitted in any codex ; nor is it mentioned in the large Massora among the number of fifty-six

passages where the *^ is omitted in the text and found in the Keri ; and there is no way of accounting for this again except as I accounted for the manner of the Talmud^ viz.^ that it differs from the Massora.

XLI. It is very surprising that we find Rashi^ of blessed memory, and Saadia Gaon,' giving Keris and Kethivs which are not to be found in any copies of the Massora. Thus, for instance, Rashi, of blessed memory, in his commentary on

''Jinn D'^y TTVf [Psalm cxliv. 2] remarks that in his copy

the Keri was Viinn> and the Kethiv ^DtlDy and I carefully looked for it, but could not find it in the great Massora numbered among

the eighteen words in which the *1 is omitted at the end of the word. And this again is the language of Rabbi Saadia Gaon

on Daniel xi. 5, " The KeH is l^nSlD and the Kethiv VnmD" Now I carefully examined the Massoretic books in all the places where the letters are changed, but could not find it; and my difficulty is [to understand] how these Gaonim could overlook the Massora, for according to the Massora which we have, their statements are incorrect. However, they [Saadia and Rashi] are much wiser than we who are as it were blind men in a window, compared with them.

XLII. For some time I was in great perplexity ; seeing that the ways of the Talmud are different from those of the Massora, as we have shewn above in the instance of plene and defective, according to whom [I asked myself] are we then to write the scrolls of the law, since what is lawful according to the one is unlawful according to the other? At the first thought it would seem that we ought to write our scrolls according to the Talmud, since we have taken it upon ourselves [to follow its authority] , and since they [i. e., the authors of the Talmud] were better

— — — — I - — ^^^^— ^— ■ ■-■ -— —

' Saadia Gaon (pto rxnsfo) hen Joseph Hor-PUhomi, the celebrated philosopher, commentator, and translator of the fiible into Arabic, was bom at Fajum, in Upper Eeypt, a.d. 892, and died in 942. It is somewhat strange that Jacob ben Chajim should name him after Rashi, who lived so much later. The title Ga&n, which denotes exeeOency, was given to those who were the spiritual heads of the Jewish community.

NBW SERIES. ^VOL. III., NO. TI. D D

402 IfUroduetum to the Rabbime Bible. [July,

versed in the Massora, as well as in plene and defective, than we are. Nevertheless^ we find that Bashi, of blessed m^mor^y draws objections from the Massora against our Talmud, as in the case of the sons of Eli, and even declares that the statement

in the Talmud that the Kethiv is D'H^Dl^D is a mistake, as we have shewn above \yide supra , § XXXIII.]. The authors of the Tossafoth too^ raise objections from the Massora against the Talmud, and make the Massora their basis, as will be seen in the sequel from a quotation in Tract Jebamoth \yide infra, § XLV.] Now if the Massora were not their basis, they would not have argued from it against the Talmud. But since we see that though they were later than the Talmudists, and yet made the Massora their basis to argue from it against the Talmud, it is evident that we too must act according to the Massora. And, indeed, this is the reason why the codices and the corrections of the scrolls are all according to the Massora ; and of a truth the men of the great synagogue [i. e., the authors of the Massora] are of great authority, and fully worthy that we should rely upon them. And though Bashi, as we have seen^ sides with

Babbi Meier in the Talmud, in the case of fYltllO, against the

Massora, taking the Kethiv as flW^, as we have stated above \yide supra, § XXXVII.], and in many other cases, yet we also see that in other places he argues from the Massora against the Talmud, as I have shewn in this section.

XLIII. As to the heretics, there is no foundation in the charge which they prefer against us, that we have wilfully altered and changed the Law, which they derive from the Itur

Sopherim (d^HDID y^V)> the Tlkun Sopherim {unU)D pp*«n)*

Keri and Kethiv, etc., because by Itur Sopherim is not meant

that they {i.e., the Scribes) have removed the % but what is said

in the Aruch under *moy ; and this is its language : " "l^WV

D'^DID denotes removal, as the Chaldee renders y^D vh [1 Ki. xxii. 44] by Vyt^^ VO ; and sd»we find in Gittim, 86, the nature

of the bill of divorce is '^^yi Tt^, i. e., discharged and sepa^ rated. Now it appears that the villagers were at first not par- ticular in reading the Scriptures, and read pD27 I^WW [Gren.

xviii. 5]; rr):afn nm^ [tWrf.]; a^^^ inwi D^tr iDip [Ps.

Ixviii. M]; TOT) DlPrn "ptODttyDT hii "n-)™ "fnpra: they committed blunders at that time, thinking that these were the correct readings because they seemed to be so. Whereupon the Sopherim came and removed these Vavs, and the reading became

186S.] Introduction to the Rablfinic Bible. 408

again yyOStn •^HM, 0^^:i nriM, ran Dinn "ptODtWD; and when it was seen that the Sopherim had removed these Vavs, the words thus corrected were denominated liur Sopherim n^tO'^ST

D'nD'^D). Rabbi Isaac therefore came and propounded that they (i.e., these restored readings) are those received by Moses on Sinai. And even up to the generations nearer that time they

blundered and read ^D h:> 5^tt^ ^h) [Exod. xxxiii. 18] when the Sopherim decreed that it should be read without a Vav. Thus far his language.

XLIV. Thus it is evident that they [i.e., the Sopherim] made no wilful changes. But if they [i. e., the heretics] will persist in it in spite of the Gaon [i. e., of what the author of the Arnch says], we can repel them with the power of argument as follows. Can any man believe that if one intends to make wilful alterations and changes he would say, See what wilful changes I have made, especially in the Prophets? Yet we find the lan- guage of the Massora is, "Five words are Itur Sopherim, etc.; eighteen words are Tlkun Sopherim.'' Now if they had intended to make wilful changes, they would surely not have proclaimed what they have changed, and said, "Eighteen words are Tikun Sopherim, as given in the Mechiltha.^ Moreover, the Sopherim made no changes nor corrections, they only submitted that the text ought originally to have been so and so ; but is veiled in other expressions out of respect to the Shechina, as you will find out by examining the subject. The same is the case with the Keri and the Kethiv : they [i. e., the Sopharim] point out what they have altered if you choose to characterize them as alterations ; we of the class of believers, however, believe that they all are [the original readings] a law of Moses from Sinai, mcludmg the Tikun Sopherim. But even if you were still to insist that the Sopherim did make alterations, the alterations in question neither raise nor lower the points upon which the heretics rest. Consult also the history of Ptolemy the king, and you wiU see that the thirteen instances where they made changes, they state the reason why they have made these alterations, and what these alterations are. In conclusion, the heretics can have nothing to say in this

XLV. But for the men of the Great Synagogue who restored the crown to its ancient state, as it is written, " They read in

» Ths MeehiUka wteo is a Midrashic exposition of Exodus xii.— -xxiii. 20, attributed to R. Ishmael ben Elisba, who flourished in the first century of the ^ristian era. For his rules of interpretation and influence on Biblical exegesis B^ Alexander's edition of Kitto's Cifdopcsdia, «. v. Ishmael ben Ehsha.

D D 2

404 Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. [J^7>

the law of Ood/^ etc. [Nehem. yiii. 8]^ see Nedarim as quoted above [§ XIX.] ^ we should have walked about as blind men^ and as those who are smitten with blindness^ and could not have found any correct codex^ nor any scroll of the Law upon which we could rely. Thus we could not have known whether a word

has the *1 conjunctive or not but for the Massora, as Tossafoth remarks on this subject in connexion with the Levirate law (Jebamoth, 106 b), where '^ Rabbi Abaja says the one who sends

a letter of divorce must not pause after the M7^ and thus read

^y* mM> since this might convey the idea that he wants to marry her, etc. Now R. Ashai found R. Kahara, who^ being perplexed

about it, read ^y^ SUM t^Tl with 1 conjunctive; whereupon the former said to him. Have you not heard what Rabe said upon this subject ? R. Kahana answered him^ In this case Rabe himself yields."*

XL VI. Tossafoth remarks thereupon, and this is its lan- guage, *'In the correct codices it is MIM V^7 without the % and this is also evident from the Massora [which says], "ish

rDM occur together three times, viz., ^n'^rWPT TJW rOM VO [Deut. X. 10] ; ^T rQM vh [ibid. xxv. 7] ; and vh *7Mn\rr» "h rDM [Ps. Ixxxi. 12]; and in two other passages it commences the verse, and is with the 1 conjunctive, viz., T\TPD iliM i^TT) [Deut. xi. 30] ; and Dy*?! *?« Vttttr'? TTiTP PDM vh) [tWrf. xxiii. 6]." It also occurs in two other passages of the same kind, not mentioned in the Massora, viz., in connexion with

Saul, rh:: M\in2 raw M*n [l Sam. xxxi. 4], and in the case

of Jephthah, rQ« vh\ vhif 3M10 1(h^ hi^ QT\ [Judges xi. 17]. Thus far the language of Tossafoth. You can see now that if it had not been for the Massora we should not have known

whether to read HIM vh or h^t^ vh\ [in Deut. xi. 30] . But finding in the Massora that PQM M7 occurs three times, and that the passage in question is counted among them, it is evident

that the reading was not rQM vh) with a 1- Indeed innumer- able examples might be adduced which are like it. Again, the Massora enumerates a certain word which is in so many instances

preceded by mS but in none of them by i^h), or vice versd / and

' The allnsion to Rabe arises from the circumstance that he laid no weieht on a pause. Compare Jebamoth, cvi. 6.

r r

1868.] Iniroduciion to the Rabbbdc Bible. 405

so all the rest. The same is also the case with flM and JlMI*

as for instance HM nMmar? riM tp:xi nw antn n» ^m r\y:fn nwi h'nsn nw hva [Numb. xxxi. 22], upon

which the Massorites remark : "And the sign is ^^•13^0''? MITH the gold belongs to the king," and the meaning is, that this passage ought to be so, for there are two passages which take this 1 before the second and the last nouns, whilst the re- maining ones have no copula^ viz., the passage before us and

•'D'Q^m "nnn •^men •'aysDn '^■^iQ«m •^nrm [Joshua ix. i].

Now the meaning of this [Massoretic sign] is that M2rn, the gold, which indicates the passage beginning with SntTT HM TM [Numb. xxxi. 22], is similar in construction, and belongs to

W37Q7 the king, which indicates the passage 73 yiOtt^a ^TTH

0*^3701! [wherewith the verse in Joshua ix. 1 begins] . From this you can see the beautiful and laconic style of the Massorites^ for thereby they make known to ns how the passage is to be read and written. If it had not been for the Massorites, how

could we tell when we find it written '^2y33m ^nTOMm 'Tl'^nn

**t^Srn whether it is right or wrong? The same is the case with plene and defective, since with us the Keri and Kethiv are of paramount importance^ although there is a dispute as to which of them should be made the basis [in expounding the text], e.g., in Pessachim, 86 b, where the question is about

v3t4^ "ITTbt mSi [Exod. xii. 46],' and the similar case in con- nexion with the feast of tabernacles, where we have r>3D!2 rOD3 n*\D1D3 [Succoth, 6 6];' and many other examples might be

* As tft« Kethiv is ^Q^ poitivej and the Keri b9fe<* active, two inferences are deduced therefrom in the Talmud. R. Jehndah maintains that the man who

partakes of the passover, hb must eat it (^) in one place (inM rru), but that the passoTer itself may be diyided, and a part of it may be eaten by another

company in another place ; basing his argument upon the Keri V><* he must eat it at one place. Whereas R. Simeon maintains that the passover itself it must

be eaten (^3^) in one place (tim ma), and cannot be divided between two dif- ferent companies in different places, though the man himself, after haying eaten his passover at home, may go to another place and partake of another company's

passoTer ; basing his argument upon the Kethiv V^^, it muet he eaten in one place,

* The word rroiDi occurs three times in the Pentateuch (twice in Lev. zziii. 42, and once in yer. 43) ; in two cases (Ley. xxiii. 42) it is defectiye, i. 6., without

the \ and in the third instance it is plene, i. e., with the ^. Now upon the sajring of the Rabbins that a tabernacle must haye two whole walls, and the third may be a partial one to be a legal tabernacle, R. Simeon remarks that it must haye three entire walls, and that the fourth may be a partial one, to constitute it a taber- nacle according to the law. This difference of opinion the Talmud explains by

406 Introduction to the RabUnie Bible. [Jnly^

adduced ou this subject (vide Tossafoth on Succa). This also obtains bj the marginal readings which are not in the text^ the Kametz and Patiach, and other things of a similar kind^ which alter the seuse^ and of which there are numerous examples. Again also in the point of the numbers of passages which the Massora gives^ 8ciying> ''There are three or four or more;'' from all this we learn many different laws and explanations. Thus^

for instance, when it is said in the Massora on the word ll^^U^K^ that it begins the verse in three verses, and the passages are

M"!! n'»\trMnn [Gen. i. 1]; a^pr)rv rO^DD nnr^«"Q [Jerem.

xxvii. 1]; and iT|TK JlDTDD H'WM'll [ibid, xxviii. 1], it throws

light upon what is said in the Talmud, where it is declared, '^ God wanted to reduce the world again to void and emptiness, because of the wicked Jehojakim, but when He looked upon the people of his time. His mind was appeased : God wanted to reduce the world again to void and emptiness, because of the people of Zedekiah's time, but when He looked upon Zedekiah, his mind was appeased [Erachim, 17 a] .^ Again we read in the Massora,

" TTl'n occurs three times, viz., *^*lb^rT p D^rPb^ TT3*n [Gren.

i. 4] ; »^,nS nnnD -IttrW D'^DH pn hrors [ibid, l 7] ; and

rnsn *^\i^ tit inS^ [l Chron. xxv. I] . Now it is said in the Talmud, ''Whoso [in the Havdalah]'' mentions the separa- tions [of God] must not mention less than three, and more than

fiaying that the sages foUow the spelling nao^, roDa, n3D3, Tvhich makes fmtr (since two are in the singular and one in the plural) ; one of these four represents the commandment itself, shewing that we must have a mo^ and the remaining three indicate the three walls, one of which is allowed by the Ualacha to be partial. Whereas R. Simeon follows the pronunciationi which is alike plural in all the three instances, and hence obtains six. He then takes one of uiese three (t. e., of the plurals) to indicate the commandment respecting the feast itself, and the remainmg two plurals, being four in number, he refers to the four walls of the

rCD, one of which may, according to the Halacha, be partial.

' The Massoretic enumeration of these three passages suggests an explana- tion of the passage in the Talmud, where Jer. xxvii. 1 and xxviii. 1 are con- nected with Gen. i. 1, shewing that God wished, in those cases where moMTO

is used to destroy the work of the first rrttMTO. May not this striking iUustration also suggest the design of the Massora in its first origin?

^ HavdaUih nVTarr is the name of the prayer which the Jews to this day offer on Sabbath evening at the goin^ out of the Sabbath and coming in of the week day. The last benediction in this prayer, in which occur the passages referred to in the Talmud, is as foUows : ^^^arpx^ Vnann oVijn -fTD wifjH « ttpm irtt V6 ttTp p Viaon »» nriH "fro, rreansn ny vfvnh vawn ov p urah *T¥mr p yarh •««, Blessed he t?ie Lord our Ood, king of the universe, who hast made a dutineUam hettoeen the holy and the common, between light and darkness, between Itratl and the other noHons, between the seventh day and the other six days of work ; biessed he thou, 0 God, who hast made a distinction between the holy and the common/

1868.] Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. 407

fteven. (Query) To say not more than seven is right, becaase seven separations are instanced, and there are no more ; but why

should there be not less than three? (Reply) Because TTi"^ occurs three times ; and as the first separation was between the Sabbath and the week days^ therefore must the three separations

be mentioned at the close of the Sabbath, viz., "TS^n^ ^*)N pi

hrh ^tnp p and anvh h^'^Vr pa, the fourth sepa. ration which is mentioned on this occasion, viz., '^ST^itt^n DV Tl

rmryDn ^^^ r/awh, is included in h)rh ttnp pa, and is simply repeated in order to make it agree in sense with the concluding benediction" [Pessachim^ 103 b, 104 a] . Again we

read in the Massora, " TDT^Q occurs four times, and the pas- sages are pnriD 'h:2 hy\ [Numb. xix. 15]; "hi^ pnriD "imttT D"^ [Job xxix. 19]; QTDi TTiDQ "Op [Psalm v. 10]; and mriD lapa inC'Q^t^ [Jerem.v. 16];" and these four correspond to the four laws or different distinctions which obtain with regard

to an earthern vessel, viz., when it has a hole [rtUlD] through which the water runs into it, the law is that it must not be used for consecrating therein the water of sin-offering, thus answering

to PnnD ^h!2 731 [Numb. xix. 15], yet it is still a vessel with respect to the growing of plants. But if the hole is so large that a small root can be put through it, then it is clean for growing therein plants, for when a plant grows in a vessel which has a hole, it is no longer subject to defilement, thus answering

to mriD ^Hf^Mf [Job xxix. 19] ; yet it is still a vessel with respect to olives. If the hole, however, is so large that an olive can pass through it, then it is clean [or not subject to defile- ment], thus answering to Qym mriD "^ap [Ps. y. 10], for what amounts to eating is the size of an olive ; yet it is still a vessel with respect to pomegranates. But if the hole is so large that a pomegranate can pass through it, then it is no longer

subject to any defilement, and thus answers to mjlD "^JlDtt^MI [Jerem. v. 16], that is to say, when the vessel has a hole through which a pomegranate can pass, it is like a heap of rubbish, for it is no longer regarded as a vessel.* Many of the Massoretic signs are used for such explanations in cases without number ; some of them are dispersed through the book Mordecai, and in

« Things in a veBBol are, according to the Talmud, subject to defilement. If the yessel, however, happens to have a hole, then it all depends upon the size of this hole, the definition of which is the subject of discussion. Compare Maimo- nides, lad Ha-Che9aka^ Hikhoth Kdim, section xiv., vol. iii., p. 3^.

408 Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. ['^7>

the Theological Decinons of the Ram., where the latter defines what is meant by the word "^JOili which the Massora says oocnrs

twice, viz., '^3^3^20 ^yOTl [Song of Songs, v. 7] , and 71 •'JtSl

'^ri'^^n [ProT. xxiii. 35] (by a comparison of these two passages) vide in loco. In fact there can be no doubt that whenever the Massorites state the numbers 7 or 4 or 10 or 8, they are designed for some great purpose, and are not useless. All this shews the great sanctity of our holy law, and that the parallels are not without design. Moreover when the Massora makes the remark in Chaldee, there is a reason for it, which will be found upon examination. For this reason I have collected all that I could find of their remarks in the Massoretic books which I possess, col- lated it and put it in these twenty-four sacred books, arranging everything in its proper place, and repeated it again in the larger Massora, so that it can be easily found. I might have written more largely upon this subject, and shewn the use of all the Massoras, and supported it by proofs, but it would have been too lengthy, and the perusal of it a weariness to the flesh.

XLVII. When I saw the great benefit which is to be de- rived from the larger Massora, the smaller Massora, and the great Massora, I apprised Mr. Daniel Bomberg of it, and shewed him the advantage of the Massora. Whereupon he did all in his power to send into all the countries in order to search what may be found of the Massora : and, praised be the Lord, we obtained as many of the Massoretic books as could possibly be got. The said gentleman was not backward, and his hand was not closed, nor did he draw back his right hand firom pro- ducing gold out of his purse to defray the expenses of the books, and of the messengers who were engaged to make search for them in the most remote corners, and in every place where they might possibly be found.

XLVIII. And when I examined these Massoretic books, and mastered their contents, I found them in the utmost disorder and confusion, so much so that there was not a sentence to be found without a blunder, that is to say, the quotations from the Mas- sorites were both incorrect and misplaced ; since those copies [of the Bible] in which the Massora was in the margin, it was not ar- ranged according to the order of the verses contained in the page. Thus, for instance, if a page had five or six verses, the first of which

began with "^QW'n, the second with 1S^, the third with rTH, the

fourth with HTttm, the fifth with Stt^m, the Massora began with

rhir^, the fourth verse (t. e., 1 'D rho^, the word n'jttn occurs twenty-two times); then followed IX^j the remark on the

1863.] Introduction to ike Rabbinic Bibk. 409

second verse {i.e., l' D IT^), and then the fifth verse (V'tO ^HflTt) without any order or plan ; and most of them were written in a contracted form and with ornaments^ so much so that they could not at all be deciphered^ as the desire of the writer was only to embellish his writing, and not to examine or to understand the sense. And in most of the copies, for instance, there were four lines [of the Massora] on the top of the page and five at the bottom, as the writer would under no circumstances diminish or increase the number. Hence, whenever there happened to be any of the alphabetic Massora, or if the Massoretic remark [belonging to a certain page] was lengthy, he split it up in the middle or at the beginning, and greatly introduced abbreviations so as to obtain even lines. Now when I observed all this con- fusion I shook my lap [i. e., bestirred myself], in the first place to arrange all the Massoras according to the verses to which they belonged, and then to investigate the Massoretic treatises in my possession, apart from those which were written in the margin of the Bibles. Wherever an omission or contraction occurred [in those copies of the Bible which had the Massora] in order to obtain even lines or four lines [of Massora] at the top [of a page in the Bible] and five at the bottom, I at once consulted the Massoretic treatises, and corrected it according to order : and wherever I found that the Massoretic treatises differed from each other, I put down the opinions of both sides, which will be found in the margin of this Bible published by us, with the Massora, the word in dispute being marked to indicate that it is not the language of the Massora : and whenever I took excep- tion to the statement of a certain Massoretic treatise because its remark did not harmonize with the majority of the copies of the Massora, whilst it agreed with a few, or whenever it contradicted itself, or where there was a mistake, I made a careful search till I discovered the truth according to my humble knowledge ; but sometimes I had to leave it in uncertainty, and for this reason there will be found many such in the margin of this Bible which we printed. The Lord alone knows how much labour I bestowed thereon, as those will testify who saw me working at it. As to the revision of the verses, it would have been impossible for me to do it correctly without knowing the whole Scriptures by heart, and this is far from me. But for a certain book called Concordance^ the author of which is the learned B. Isaac Nathan/ who lived

/ The exact year in which R. Iflaac Nathan, the anthor of the first Hebrew concordance, was bom cannot now be ascertained. He composed this gigantic work between the year 1437 and 1445 ; the edUio pnncep$ referred to by Jacob b. Ohi^im appeared in 1523.

410 Inirodnetum to the RabUme Bible. U^J»

some forty years ago^ and which was published in our printing- office at Venice^ I could not have corrected the verses. This is a precious work ; it embraces all the points of the Holy Bible, and explains all the sacred Scriptures by stating all nouns and verbs with their analogous forms^ and giving at the heading of every noun and verb an explanation^ saying the meaning of the word is so and so, or branches out in such and such a manneri and comments upon each one separately. It also marks the division of each chapter, and the number of chapters in every prophetical book, and tells in which chapter and verse every word occurs, i. «., verse 4, 20, or 80, thereby any word wanted may easily be found. And if a verse has four or five verbs or

nouns, e,g,^ ^rf^U2 *n*' 7211, you will find it quoted under

72, under f , and under nD3, so that if you only remember one word of the verse, whether a verb or noun, you will easily find the required passage under the root of the verb or noun. The advantage to be derived from this book is indescribable; without it there is no way of examining the references of the Massora, since one who studies the Massora must look into the verse which the Massora quotes, and which without a concordance would take a very long time to find, as you might not know in which prophet the passage referred to occurs, and if you knew the pro- phet, you might still not know the chapter and verse. Besides, all the world is not so learned in the Scriptures. Whosoever has this concordance does not require any more the lexicon of Kimchi, for it contains all the roots, whereunto is added an index of all the verses in the Bible : none of them is wanted. In conclusion, without it I could not have done the work which I have done.

XLIX. Seeing that the Massora was too large to be printed entire in the margin, I have not repeated the Massoretic remark

after it has been given once. Thus, for instance, H /ti^^ occurs twenty-two times : I enumerated the passages in the remark on

the words TliTfT^ r\M PlW^I [Gen. viii. 8], and when I after- wards came again to the word HTtt^'^l, in another place, I did not repeat all these references, having given them once before, but simply said the Massoretic remark will be found in section

n3.^ As the prophetic books are large, every prophet having on an average twenty-five chapters, my labour would have been in vain if I had simply said the word is found in such and such a

' m 18 the title of one of the Sabbathic lessons comprising Gen. ▼!. 9 — zi. 33; vide iupra^ $ XV., p. 387.

1 868.] Introduction to the RaUinic BiUe. 41 1

prophet, since the reference could not be found without great exertion, and the student would soon have grown weary and left it off altogether. I have, therefore, adoptc^i the division of the chapters which B. Isaac Nathan made, and said it occurs in such and such a prophet and in such and such a verse. Had I at that time the Massoretic division of the chapters on the whole Bible I would have preferred it, but I did not get it till I had almost finished the work. I have, nevertheless, published it separately, so that it may not be lost to Israel.

L. To make the Massora perfect I was obliged to re-arrange and correct the lai^er Massora, for it was impossible to print it in the margin of the Bible, and I have therein adopted the alphabetical order of the Aruch, to facilitate the reader. More- over, all that we have printed of the larger Massora in the margin of the Bible, I have also repeated a second time in the great Massora, which I arranged alphabetically according to the exam- ple of the Aruch, but did not give it again entire ; I have only repeated the beginning of the remarks. Thus, for instance, I said,

" 1 10 yoy^, the word itt^^, occurs fifteen times, as you will find in such and such a prophet and passage ;" the same is the case with other observations which I have omitted, and this I have done designedly. Let an illustration suffice. If the student will examine a page of a prophetical or any other book of the Bible, he will find that it has generally ten or eleven verses ; that there is not a verse which is without a Massoretic remark on a word or more, and that the smaller Massora notes every word upon which there is any Massora, and says it occurs four, thirteen, or fifteen times; and that it was impossible to print the whole Massora which belongs to that page; hence, when there are ten words on it which belongs to the Massora, I only give four or five at most, as the space of the page does not admit of more. Now the student not knowing whether it is given in another place, or where to look for it, might think that this Bible has not all the Massora which belongs to it. I have, therefore, been obliged to indicate in the root of the word in the great Massora in what part it is printed in such and such a prophet, and with what sign. I have also been obliged to repeat and state in the lai^er Massora many of the Massoretic remarks which the former editors have omitted in many places, because the page happened to be just as large as was required for printing the other matter. You, therefore, find it many a time stated in the

margin of the Bible MJll'l 'UGl ")DD3, the Massora on this passage is in the great Massora. Wherever also the Massoretic remarks belonging to a certain page were so large as to render

412 Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. [Jnlj^

it impossible to give them in their proper place^ which was too narrow, or wherever there were the alphabetic remarks of the great Massora which belonged to the same page, I always noted in the margin, '^ this is one of such and such an alphabet, and is noted in the great Massora under such and such a letter/^ so that the student may easily find it. And you mast not be astonished to find in the Massora such language as, " it is noted in second or first Samuel, or second Kings, or second Chronicles,'' or to see Ezra and Nehemiah separated ; for the author of the con- cordance who divided the law, prophets, and hagiographa, into chapters, also divided Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles respectively into two books, and denominated Ezra the first ten chapters of the book, and the rest of the book he called Nehemiah ; and as I have adopted the division of the concordance, I thought it advisable to append to the end of this introduction a list of all the chapters, with the words with which they begin and of their number in each book ; so that if there crept in any mistakes in printing, they may easily be rectified by this list printed at the end of the introduction. We have printed in this Bible the number of every chapter in order that the student may easily find the passage when the Massora says, '' It is noted in such a chapter"

LI. Behold, I have exerted all my might and strength to collate and arrange the Massora with all the possible improve* ments, in order that it may remain pure and bright, and shew its beauty to the nations and princes, for, indeed, it is beautiful to look at. This was a labour of love for the benefit of our brethren, the children of Israel, and for the glory of our holy and perfect law, as well as to fulfil as far as possible the desire of Mr. Daniel Bomberg, whose expenses in this matter far ex- ceeded my labours. And as regards the commentaries, I have exerted my powers to the utmost degree to correct in them all the mistakes as far as possible; and whatsoever my humble endeavours could accomplish was done for the glory of the Lord, and for the benefit of our people ; and I would not be de- terred by the enormous labour, for which cause I did not sufler my eyelids to be closed long, either in the winter or summer, and did not mind rising in the cold of the night, as my aim and desire were to see this holy work finished. Now praised be the Creator who granted me the privilege to begin and finish this work. Remember me, oh my God, for good I

1868.] ( 418 )

COBBESPOHDEHCE.

L_

IfFe wUh tmr readert to understand thai we cannot be held responeibk for the epinione of our eoniriduiore and eorretpondente. The uimott we eon do i» to keep a careful eye upon the literary character of their communicationg, and to wee thai they do not tranaeend the Umite of fair criticiem and lawfiU inquiry.']

THE EARLIER CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST BOOK OF ESDRAS, AND OF THE ELEVENTH BOOK OF THE JEWISH

ANTIQUITIES OF JOSEPHUS.

(Concluded from Vol. III., p. 154.)

In this discassion we must particularly bear in mind that the sorrow and fasting of Daniel were not caused bj the vision and revelation, which he evidently appears to have received eifter his three weeks' absti- nence (verse 12). He had probably hoped that the troubles and calami- ties of his people had well nigh ended on their return to the holy city of their fathers. He was, however, to be painfully undeceived. The tidings of the virulent opposition which Zerubbabel and Jeshua were experiencing from their Cuthean neighbours, " the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin," the absence of Cyrus, still ambitious and enterprising, in some remote part of his empire, which prevented Daniel from making application to him for his royal aid in this crisis, stirred up in the pro- phet a spirit of earnest and thoughtful prayer to the Most High, to be enabled to understand this apparent change in the divine dealings with Jerusalem and the temple.

Thus Ezra's record of the erection of the altar of burnt-offering by Zerubbabel and Jeshua, which would naturally be one of the very earliest national acts of religion on the part of the returned Jews, and the mourning and fasting of Daniel m the third year of Cyrus — not to mention the positive assertion of Josephus that Zerubbabel was sent as governor to Jerusalem by Cyrus in the first year of his reign — would seem to furnish a very reasonable warrant for Newton's assertion, that *' the Jews returned from captivity under Zerubbabel, in the firtt of Cyrua, dwelt in their cities until the seventh month, and then, coming to Jerusalem, they Jlrat built the altar (Ezra iii. 2), and in the first day of the seventh month began to offer the daily burnt-offerings," etc.

Surely when your correspondent discovers that he is not only directly opposed to Josephus and Sir Isaac Newton, but also to Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, (for on this subject the opinion of Nehemiah would doubtless be that of Ezra,) he will cease from peremptorily asserting that Zerubbabel and Jeshua did not come to Jerusalem from Babylon until about two or three years before the battle of Marathon, and therefore that the temple was not finished and dedicated until cir*

41 4 Correipondence. [fviy,

B.C. 487. Could the combined testimony (even if we could reallj get at it) of the apocryphalJBsdras, Tobit, and Judith, of Onesicritus and Lucian, and of Ferdusi, prevail upon us to accept this *' clumsy and ludicrous" notion against the joint testimony or Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezra among sacred writers, and of Herodotus, . Xenophon, Ctesias, Berosus, Josephus and Justin among secular authors.

They who believe that the earlier part of the book of Ezra, from the commencement to the words ''all the days of Cyrus king of Persia" (iv. 5) belongs to the reign of Cyrus, will of course allow that, as the text now stands, the title Tirshatha is applied to Zerubbabel in Esra ii. 63 ; Neh. vii. 65 and 70. Of course any one who feels convinced that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah could possibly have given to Zerubbabel the title of Tirshatha, is at liberty to suspect or believe, as he may choose, that in both these books the original text has been interpolated or corrupted.

Before beginning to write my letter on Nehemiah^ the Tirshatha, I was aware (and it required slight elementary knowledge of the subject

to be so) that mrtb and mt5 (l^) were scarcely differing forms of an

Aramaic root signifying *' to drink," and that if we derive the word Tirahaiha from this source, it would be a title peculiarly applicable to one who had been the king's cup-bearer.

Believing, however, as I still do, that the title in question is applied by the sacred historians to Zerubbabel as well as to Nehemiah, I re- garded the word as most probably a Persian designation of official station. And as there appears to be nothing whatever in the Old Testa- ment to lead us to suppose that Zerubbabel (Sheshbazzar) had been cup-bearer either to Belshazzar or to Darius the Mede, I took for granted (too hastily, I acknowledge) that as it was used to designate both Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, the title was kindred in meaning with

' Were we to follow the apocryphal Esdras, we should suppose that Ezra ii. 61 — 63 (Neh. yii. 63 — 65) is an interpolation, that being ascribed to Zerubbabel which prooerly bebngs to Nehemiah. **For unto them said Nehemias and Atharias, tnat they should not be partakers of the holy things," etc. (1 Esdr. ▼. 40.) There would seem to be an amusing blunder here ; the apocryphal writer having multiplied the one individual "Nehemiah the Tinhaiha" into two, ** Nehemiah and Athariaa,**

^ Sheshbazzar and Tirshatha have been thought to be Persian names of the same office, perhaps of cup-bearer. In Cruden, Sheshbasaar is interpreted ** joy Ml tribfdaiion,** (ns ^ Mo) ; and again, "Joy of the vintage'' (tnto ia|, Kal, noi Pid). But there are one or two objections against deriving the name or title isai^ from either of the above combinations: (1.) to is put for «); and (2.) if the name were really so derived, we should expect only a single (z\ Sheshftcucr rather than Sbesh&oieMr. I have not my copy of Gasenius at hand, but in Bagster's smaller Hebrew Lexicon I find Sheshbazzar explained as " the Persian, name of Zerubbahelj" and Vf^rfnD as " a iUU of Nehemiahy used toiik the tarUcle."

Of the Persian origin of Tirshatha we perhaps know nothing. The Lexicon gives vhn as the proper name of a Persian. Even if we assume that the letters of this name (as is so frequently the case with Hebrew proper names) are those of a significant verbal root in the ancient Persian, we shaU gain but litUe, aa we have no means of ascertaining the signification of this supposed root.

1868.] The First Book of Esdras. 415

nn^ (govenior), another title oommon to these two distinguished Jews. I ooald now wish that wherever in my letter the word Tinkatha is con- nected as an official title with Zerobbabel, the word governor should be snbstitated for it.

At the same time it should be remembered that if we derive Tir- shatha from mtv^, and hold it to designate a king's cup-bearer, and if we hold also that the text, as we now have it in Ezra ii. 63 and Neh. rii. 65 and 70,' is correct, we may seem to be almost compelled to sup- pose that, in consequence of the great affection and esteem in which Darius the Mede held Daniel, he was induced (as Artaxerxes Longi- manus afterwards did in the case of Nehemiah) to promote a Jew to the honourable, delicate, and highly-confidential office of his cup-bearer, and that the Jew upon whom the royal choice fell was Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel. Certainly, to say the least, this would seem to be

2uite as probable as that Zerubbabel, after having resided (while Darius [ystaspes was yet only a private person) some time at Jerusalem as governor of the Jews under Cyrus and Cambyses, should have travelled from Jerusalem, after the death of the Magian usurper, on learning the unexpected elevation of Darius to the throne of Persia and Babylon, and have been made by that king one of his body-guard.

The view here suggested, rather than asserted, may perhaps receive some support from the following considerations. Jahn thinks that " the names of Sheshbazzar and Tirshatha are perhaps Persian deno- minatioru of the same office." And this is all that he says on the sub- ject. If we consult Ezra i. 8, and v. 14 and 16, we shall see strong reasons for thinking that the princely descendant of David (Matt. i. 12) who in the first year of Cyrus conducted the liberated Jews from Babylon into Judsea, and who was known to them by the name of Zerubbabel, was known to the Persians by that of Sheshbazzar. We shall be assisted in understanding this, if we bear in mind that the illustrious Hebrew seer at Babylon was known to the Chaldeans as Belteshazzar, and to the Jews as Daniel ; while his three friends had also Chaldean as well as Hebrew names. We may thus suppose that Zerubbabel may have received the name of Sheshbazzar in Babylon, • because he had been raised to some post of trust and honour, which may have been that of cup-bearer.

Mr. Bosanquet insists upon identifying Cyaxares, the son of the defeated and dethroned Astyages, (whom, after having deposed him, Cyrus made governor (praposuit) of Hyrcania) with the Ahasuerus of Esther, the sovereign of a mighty and widely-extended empire, which included within its ample limits. Media, Persia, and Elam, and we may

« Especially Neh. vii. 70. The Jews are described as being in distress and reproach in the twentieth of Artaxerxes (Neh. i. 3, and ix. 37) ; nor is there the slightest ground in the sacred narrative for supposing that Nehemiah brought from Shnshan a large sum in gold. Accordingly the words, " The Tirshatha eave to the treasure a thousand drachms of gpla, and some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of tA« work (Ezra li. 68, 69), the rest of the people

eve twenty thousand drachms of gold/' etc., belong rather to the time of 2eruh- bel than to that of Nehemiah.

416 Correspondence, l^^^Jf

doubtless add, Babylon.^' Tet he must confess that while Herodotus gives the dethroned monarch nothing to bequeath to his son, even Gtesias and Justin only allow him the power of leavine the remote pro- vince of Hyrcania to his heir, and that apparently under the suzeraintj of Cyrus. Now even your correspondent is scarcely at liberty to sup- pose, in direct contradiction to the emphatic and significant silence of all authentic history, that this Cyaxares (Ahasuerus), having inherited the government of Hyrcania from his dethroned father, and setting out from that distant and barbarous region, should have proceeded, by a career of warlike conquest which would have well nigh cast into the shade the exploits of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, to make himself master of the vast Medo- Persian empire, — or that some royal relative, overlooking Cyrus, bequeathed to him the ample and splendid realm with Shushan as its metropolis, — or that, having won the heart of Yashti, he married her, and received as a magnificent dower from the bride, to be added to his own Hyrcanian province, Media, Persia, Elam and Chaldea. I can conceive few historical problems more difficult of solution than the unparalleled elevation of Cyaxares (Ahasuerus) the son of Astyages,' the governor of Hyrcania, and ex-king of Media, to the throne of that vast empire of which we read in the first four verses

' If we withhold Babylon from Ahasaenis, and suppose that a powerftil con- temporary sovereign was then reigning over the neighbooring kingdom of Chaldea, it will follow that when, at the snggestion of Haman, a decree was passed for the slaughter of the Jews throughout the empire of Ahasuerus, during the year which was to intervene between the issuing of the decree and the time appointed for its execution, the greater part of the Jews of Elam and Shushan could have escaped across the Tigris, and have found refuge in Chaldea. A similar objection would follow if we suppose Ahasuerus to have been sovereign only over a limited portion of Media and Persia. So late as the third of Bel- shazzar, Shusan and Elam belonged to Babylon (Dan. viii. 2). And in the ro- mance of the Gyropcedia it is stated that, in the first encounter of Cyms with Crodsus, Abradates king of Susiana (a region bordering on Elam) was an ally of the Babylonians, and afterwards joined Cyrus. Babylon, therefore, must have been taken by Cyrus ; Elam and Shushan have been won over or conquered by the same Persian warrior before Ahasuerus became sovereign of the vast Medo-Persian empire, which was doubtless ruled over in succession by Cyras and his son Cambyses, from b.c. 536 to b.o. 623.

' I am not aware that Mr. Bosanquet attempts anywhere to remove the de- throned Astyages from Hyrcania, where Cyrus had established him, to Ecbatana or Shushan, as a restored, powerful, and independent monarch. But he seems to make Astyages hold the government of the Hyrcanian province much longer than he is warranted by the testimony of Ctesias : for he writes (the italics are his own), " Cyrus must have come to the throne (of Media) many years after the death of Attyapea, whose death, as I have constantly asserted, and still repeat, took place m b.c. 539." Astyages was, therefore, thus governor of Hyr- cania—Justin expressly says of him, in Medos reverti ipge nolvit—ahoni twenty years. Your correspondent candidlv allows that his chronological system " is

and, above all, he should be careful of^his ground before he ventures flatly to contradict Herodotus, aesias, and Justin (and we may add Xenophon's Ana- oan$, and Isocrates' EvaaorL which he does when he asserts that " Cyrus did not come to the throne of Media until many years after the death of Astyages."

1868.] The First Book of Esdras. 417

of the book of Esther. It may be possible to admit that CyraSy deeming Gyaxares to be of too feeble a character to be dangerous, may perhaps have made him viceroy of Media ; but if we are to believe thaty without the assistance or even the consent of Gyrus and his son Gambyses, this Gyaxares became the mightiest, absolute, and most independent sovereign in the world, we can only say in amazement^ What next ?

Mr. Bosanquet writes on one occasion, "Demetrius tells us that tke Uut captiviiif of Judah was 338 years, three months before the reign of Ptolemy Philopator; i.e., B.C. Nov. 222 + 338=b.c. Aug. 560." He has avowedly based his proposed system of reconciling scriptural with secular chronology on the supposed fact that the last captivity of Judah, and therefore the burning of the temple by the Ghaldeans, occurred b.c. 560. But the temple was burned in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, which year must therefore have partly co- incided with B.C. 560. Now Mr. Bosanquet has accepted the generally- received view that Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-three years. Hence, according to this hypothesis (for no one doubts that the great Ghal- dean's reign was terminated only by his death), Nebuchadnezzar, whose reign extended to twenty-three years later than b.c. 560, t.^, to b.c. 537, died about one year after the capture of Babylon by the Medo- Persian army under the command of Cyrus.

But Mr. Bosanquet has also accepted b.c. 560 as the date of the overthrow of Attyages, when Gyrus became king of Media as well as of Persia. We are thus to suppose that these two neighbouring warlike and ambitious monarchs were mighty, restless, and enterprising con- temporary sovereigns for more than twenty years, — that for the space of nearly twenty years they never came into serious and dangerous collision, — that rfebuchadnezzar did not, or could not, prevent Gyrus from attacking and afterwards dethroning Groesus, and from the sub- sequent siege and capture of Babylon, — and that the once-renowned son of Nabopolassar died in a condition little better than that of a subject of the triumphant Persian.

Your correspondent (whether intentionally, — and to evade a portion of this difficulty, it is for him to determine) after repeatedly insisting upon the accuracy of the date advocated by Demetrius, has, in his last letter, without giving any notice to the reader, carried back the date from B.C. 560/ to b.c. 564. This change will of course give B.C. 541

/ In J. 8. Zf., Oct, 1860, p. 175, Mr. Bosanqnet proposes to raise the date of the fall of Jemsalem fourteen years, " to rectify the chronology of Demetrius," t.e., from B.C. 560 to 574. A correspondent sugc^ests that instead of tXt; (338), Demetrius may have written " t|^) (368)," which would carry back the date to 590 B.C., /. 8. JO., April, 1857, p. 169. One would gladly accept this conjectural emendation ; as it may seem to be really unjust to the memory of this Jewish author, who could both sneak and write in (Treek, to suppose him to have been 80 ill-informed in the Heorew, Chaldean, Median, and Persian history and chro- nology, as to think that Nebuchadnezzar in the nineteenth year of his reign of forty-three years, burned the temple about the same time that Cyrus defeated and dethroned Astyages. Surely Demetrius could not have been guilty of bo anserine an error — it would be very unjust to Demetrius to use the harsher term

NEW SERIES. — VOL. III., NO. VI. E E

418 Corregpamknee. [J^7>

u the date of NebodiadiiezEaT^s death, who wonld thas hare died, if not before Cjrms had begun to make his preparations for the si^e of the Qaeen of the Euphrates, at least before the Medo-Persian army had actually commenced the siege. It would, however, be doubtless better for your correspondent to carry back the date in qoestion (as indeed he was for a time inclined to do) to b.c. 574, though even this date is far inferior to the old-fashioned one of b.c. 588. At all events, almost any earlier date is preferable to b.c. 560. For this date wonld make the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar coincide in part with the year of the overthrow of Cyrus ; and force Nebuchadnezzar, doubtless very much against his will, to witness and survive the capture of Babylon.

What wonder then if Newton, who held that Babyloo was taken by Cyrus, cir. b.c. 538, should reject Demetrius' date for the burning of the temple, which wonld bring the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar down to the year of the triumph of Cyrus over Astyages. Biassed by a previously-formed theory, and therefore perplexed as this great man may possibly have been by some things which he supposed himself to have found in Ezra and Nehemiah, ^yet Mr. Bosanquet candidly allows that *' Newton, beinff unable to Mhake off the tikachUi of ihe received Per^ tian chronoloffy, places the return*' (of Zembbabel and Jeshua, and their company) '' in the reign of Cyrus." Let the reader particularly notice what a powerful and Newtonian testimony we have here in fiivoor of the received Persian chronology. The shackles, which the master- mind of the author of the Prineipia was unable to devise any legitimate means of snapping asunder, must have been made of well- tempered metal. It is, therefore, no reproach to Mr. Bosanquet to have alto- gether failed in a task which Newton himself, even with the supposed aid of Ezra and Nehemiah, was unable to accomplish.

I do not yet despair of seeing your correspondent, in agreement with Josepfaus and Newton, maintain, in the cause of historio&l truth, that Darius the Mede was not Darius the Persian, — that the Ahasuerus of Esther was not Cyaxares the son of the defeated and dethroned Astyages, — that this Ahasuerus reigned over the whole of the vast Medo-Persian empire, — and (though last, not least) that Zembbabel, Jeshua, and their company, left Babylon for Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus, and some years before Darius Hystaspes became, from the condition of a private person, king of Persia.

Nov. 22nd, 1862. A Constant Reader.

P.S. I have given too much to the supposed Cyaxares (Ahasuerus) at the death of his father Astyages. Justin indeed says that " Cyras Astyagem maxima genti Hyrcanorum prseposuit." Ctesias, the greater authority, says that Cyrus madfc the defeated and dethroned Astyages governor of the Barcanii, a Parthian people bordering upon Hyrcania.

asinine, as his blander is confessedly by no means large enoneh to bear the weight of the latter epithet. It is very strange that a writer in this enlightened nineteenth century, who jprofesses to have read extensively, and spent a con- siderable portion of his time on biblical and secular chronology and history, should prevail upon himself to accept and uphold the error of Demetrius.

1868.]

The First Book of Esdras.

419

There is yet another passage in the letter on Biblical chronology which may seem to require a little notice. My remarks mtfy possibly lead your correspondent to reconsider some of the statements which he has advanced. The difficulty will be best understood by confronting the passage in question with a portion of the third chapter of Ezra. The italics are your correspondent's.

Mr. Bosanquet. " The third chapter of Ezra refers not to the time of Cyms, but to the time of Darias, because, as before obBcrved, the laying the foondation of the templcy or palace, teTr, re- ferred to in Ezra iii. 10, was in the ninth month of the second year of the reign of Darius. It is true that in the second month of the same year, the Levites began to set for- ward the work of the house, n»3. of the Lord, that is to prepare the ground for the laying the founda- tion (Ezra iii. 8) ; and again, in the sixth month of the same year, they did work in the house of the Lord,

rn, that is, on the site of the build- ing (Haggai i. 14). But not one stone was laid upon another of Uie

temple, byn, till the ninth month (Haggai ji. 15; Zech. viii. 9)."—

Ezra. 8. "Now in the second year of their coming unto the house of God at Jeru- salem, in the second month, began Zerub- babel and Jeshua and the remnant of their brethren, the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the cap- tivity unto Jerusalem ; and appointed the Lentes from twenty years old and up- ward to set forward the work of the house of the Lord. 9. Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren. ... 10. And when the builders laid the foundation' of the temple of tke Lord, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David king of Israel. And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the hou$e of the Lord was laid" (Ezra iii. 8—11).

Oct., 1862, p. 176.

The great majority of the readers of this extract from Ezra will most probably agree that it was one and the same assembly which, on one and the same day, praised God in verses 10, 11, " for the laying the foundation of the temple of the Lord," and ''because the founda- tion of the house of the Lord was laid."

This would be true even if we could possibly bring ourselves to think that your correspondent, instead of being in serious error, is actually right in directly opposing Usher and Newton, and asserting, without anything like satisfactory reasons, that the foundation of the temple was not laid by Zerubbabel until the ninth month in the second year of the reign of Darius ; but that the foundation of the home of the Lord had been previously laid in the first or second year of Cyrus, by Sheshbazzar, a (supposed) predecessor of Zerubbabel in the govern- ment of Judsea.

The vast majority of the readers of Ezra will also infer from the

f It is perhaps an objection to Mr. Bosanqnet's theory, that it seems to re- quire us to believe that it was at this time of devoted, zealous, and unanimous diligence in the work of the temple, that Haggai was directed to say of the re- turned Jews, '^ Unclean is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord ; and so is every work of their hands, and that which they offer there is unclean'' (Haggai ii. 14).

K £ 2

420 Correspondence. {Jrfy*

tenor of his brief and plain narrative that all the events comprised in Ezra iii. 8 — 1 1, whether occupying a few days or extending throagh some weeks, happened in continuous succession; and indeed that do important interruption to the work of the house of God until the visit of the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin, recorded in Ezra iv. 1 — 3. I cannot see that there is room for doubt on this point.

Your correspondent will, I trust, agree with me, that on comparing the eighth verse of the third chapter of Ezra with the preceding seven verses (in which we read that the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem ... set up the altar. . . began to offer burnt-offer- ings . . . kept the feast of tabernacles . . . afterwards gave money to car- penters and masons . . . provided meat, drink, and oil for the men and mariners of Zidon and Tyre, to have cedar trees brought from Lebanon to the sea of Joppa, according to the grant that they had of Cyrns king of Persia, and many of which cedars we may reasonably presume would have arrived already in the second month of the following year), your correspondent, I repeat, will surely agree with me in thinking that the assembly which was gathered together at Jerusalem in the second month (Ezra iii. 8), was full of religions and patriotic zeal, and that the almost unanimous cry of all hearts would be the time is come

TO BUILD THE LoRD's HOUSE.

Now, according to your correspondent, the following events took place at Jerusalem in the second year of the reign of Darius. In the second Jewish month of that same year, the Levites began to prepare the ground for laying the foundation (Ezra iii. 8), in the sixth month of the same year they worked on the site of the building (Haggai i. 14), and in the ninth month of the same year the foundation of the temple was laid (Ezra iii. 10; Haggai ii. 10, 15, 18).

We have thus, according to Mr. Bosanquet, a period of eight con- tinuous months in the second year of Darius. He tells us of certain events which occurred in the second, sixth, and ninth Jewish months of the second year of this Persian king. How is it that he has said nothing of what occurred at Jerusalem and in Judaea, between the second hnd sixth months? Should your correspondent reply "What historical record have we of anything that occurred in the intervening third, fourth, and fifth Jewish months?" Certainly not any, on the view of Usher and Newton ; though we have rather a copious one on his own view. For I would refer Mr. Bosanquet to the following ex- tract from Haggai.

" In the second year of Darius, on the/r«^ day of the sixth month, came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the high priest, saying. This people

say, THE TIME IS NOT COME, THE TIME THAT THE LORD*8 HOUSE

SHOULD BE BUILT. . . . Cousidcr your ways. . . Mine house is waste, and ye run ewry man unto his own house. Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is sUyed from her fruit. And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, new wine and oil, upon that which th^^round bringeth forth, upon men, and cattle, and all the labour of theliands. Then Zerub-

1863.] 7%fi First Book of Esdras. 421

babel and the remnant of the people obeyed the voice of the Lord their God and the words of Haggai the prophet. . . . Jnd Ihe Lord stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel and of Joshua, and of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of the Lord of Hosts their God, in the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king.

The following then will be the arrangement on the view of Mr. Bosanquet's eight continuous months of the second of Darius.

I. (Ezra iii. 8.) In the second* Jewish month, in the second year of their coming to Jerusalem {in the second year of the reign of Darius), the liberated Jews, nnder Zerubbabel and Jeshua, zealously and dili- gently prepare the ground for laying the foundation of the house.

II. A short interval then occurs ; during which a great change comes over the mind of the people. They cease from the work of the house of God. They hasten every man to his own house, desiring to provide for themselves comfortable dwellings. And to every remon- strance on the part of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the people reply : '* The time is not come, the time that the house of the Lord should be built, ^* (Hag. i. 2).

III. The divine displeasure is then manifested. The heaven over them is stayed from dew, the earth is stayed from her fruit. A drought is upon the corn, new wine and oil, and upon all the labour of the hands (Hag. i. 10, 11).

IV. This is followed by a solemn, yet gracious, interposition on the part of the Most High, who, on the first day of the sixth month (in the same year), sends his prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel and Jeshua, who says to the Jews : '* Cousider your ways ; go up to the mountain, and bring wood and build the house, and I will take pleasure in it." (Hag. i. 8).

V. The Lord having stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel, 7eshua, and of all the remnant of the people, they came ; and resuming the work, which would appear to have been so unaccountably abandoned, did work in the house of the Lord {i.e., *'on the site of the building**) in the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month (Hag. i. 14, 15, and Ezra v. 2).

YI. Your correspondent seems to think that about three months afterwards (apparently when Tatnai came to Jerusalem a second time, Ezra vi. 1 4), on the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, the founda- tion of the temple was laid (Hag. i. 10, 15, 18 ; Ezra iii. 10).*

Snrely the mere statement of that which is so thoroughly improbable, is enough to ensure its rejection. It is not by offering sucn almost

* That we are to understand that Haggai and Zechariah are speaking of Jewish months, is evident from Zech. i. 7 : " Upon the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius," etc.

' It is, doubtless, a very grave objection to your correspondent's improbable view, that between the eighth and tent/i verses of the third of £zra, no allusion whatever is made to the names and mission of Haggai and Zechariah. Should Mr. Bosanquet allege that Ezra himself seems afterwards to have become aware of the defect, and to have attempted to supply the omission in the^r«^ and second verses of the^^A chapter, it may be presumed that the reply would not be gene- rally accepted as satisfactory.

422 Con*e3pondence. [July,

cruel violence to the plain narrative of Scripture, that the illustrioas Newton can be proved to have fallen into serious error, in assigning the events recorded in the second and third chapters of Ezra to the lifetime and reign of the Cyrus of Ezra and Daniel.

Maj I be permitted to offer a few words upon an objection on which your correspondent lays some stress.

The liberated Jews, coming into Judeea, a province of the Persian empire, would speak of themselves as the children of the province, who were come up out of the captivity (Ezra ii. 1), they would also speak of themselves as *' the congregation of them that were come up out of the captivity."

Let it be supposed, for the sake of the argument, that Zerubbabel and Jeshua arrived at Jerusalem about the end of B.C. 536. It might be said of all, young and old, at the commencement of B.C. 535, that they were come up out of the captivity. Forty years afterwards, in B.C. 495, strictly speaking, the people could be divided into two congrega* tions, — one would be designated as the congregation of those who came up out of the captivity ; the other, as the congregation of the children and grandchildren of those who came up out of the captivity. But is it at all probable that any such distinction was made ? It is easy to believe, that for at least fifly years after the return, the Original desig- nation was retained. It would thus have become, as it were, stereo- typed. And when we consider how averse a community is to change a usage or a designation — especially without some strong reason — it seems not unlikely, that so long as the Jews spoke of themselves in reference to their return from the captivity, they would employ the shorter desig- nation— the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity, instead of the more cumbrous form, — the congregation of the children (or descendants) of those who were come up out of the capti- vity. There is thus no valid reason whatever against our believing that Nehemiah is speaking (viii. 17) of those Jews who were keeping the feast of tabernacles, in the twentieth year of Artazerxes Longimanus (cor. B.C. 445-4),

The more I consider the subject, the more evident does it appear that your correspondent's chronological theory is thoroughly erroneous. I wish neither to deny his diligence and research, nor the sincerity of his conviction that his view is correct, and that Usher and Newton have both erred. He has elsewhere said : " After studying this intricate subject for many years, and after carefully examining every variety of opinion which has been advanced concerning it, I submit that little dis- crepancy will be found between the records of the sacred^' Hebrew writers and the records of the early Greek historians, if we identify Ahasuerus, who destroyed Nineveh, with Cyaxares the father of Astyages ; the conqueror of Astyages and Crcesus, with the father of Cambyses ; the

y Mr. BoBanquet only names two classes of authors — ^the sacred Hebrew writers, and the early Greek historians. Now, it is from Tobit that we learn that Ahasuerus took Nineveh. His work is extant in Greek ; and we may hope that it is not intended to include him among the sacred writers of the Old Testament.

1863.] Biblical Chronology. 428

Ahasueras of Daniel, Esther, and Ezra* (iv. 6), with Cyaxares, the son of Astjages ; the taker of Babylon,' and releaser of the* Jews from cap- tivity, with Cyrus, the son of Cambyses ; and Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, with Darius, the son of Hystaspcs " (%/. 8, L., Jan., 1857, p. 461).

I must, however, continue to agree with another of your correspon- dents, who writes : *' I venture to think, ,the more the matter is sifted, the more impossible it will appear to consider 'Darius, the Mede/ and ' Darius Hystaspes,' as one and the same person."

29th Dee., 1862.

BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY.

Alloiv me to make a few observations in reply to the letters of two of your correspondents, in the Journal of April, who have touched, though somewhat loosely, on the subject of my communication in October last. In that communication, I endeavoured to shew that when the Jews first returned from captivity, at Babylon, in the reign of Cyrus, with permission to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, they were compelled, by the intrigues of their enemies, to limit their operations to the laying of the foundations of the house of God, by Sheshbazzar, and to the erection of a '' tabernacle, as in the days of David," referred to in 1 Chron. ix. 23, "in which all the duties of the house of God were performed," and before which, of course, the daily sacrifices, commanded by the law of Moses, were offered. It is hardly necessary to add that this tabernacle, with the altar attached to it, could not at that time have been placed upon the actual site of the old altar and temple which had been destroyed, considering that masons were em- ployed upon that site, from the days of Cyrus to the days of Darius, in preparing the foundation for the future temple."* The temple, properly

* It is said (Ezra iv. 6) that, at the beginning of the reign of " AhasueruB, the enemies of the Jews wrote an accusation to him against the inhabitants of Judah and JerusaJem."

Now, your correspondent identifies him with the Ahasuems of Mordecai, and the Cyaxares of the Cyropcedia. And he elsewhere very positively asserts that this Ahasuerus Cyaxares began to reign in b.c. 538, the year after the death of his father, Astyages, in b.c. 539.

If, then, the Ahasuerus of Ezra, iv. 6,— the beginning of whose reign was evidently later than the restoration of the Jews by Cyrus from Babylon,— began to reign b.c. 538, Cyrus must have taken Babylon, and restored the Jews earlier than B.C. 538, and while Astyages was yet living.

' Ctesias evidently held (with Herodotus and Xenophon) that the father of Cambyses, and conqueror of Croesus, was also the taker of Babylon. A note to the Delf^in Justin says, that Ctesias relates that Cambyses, on his return from Egypt, reached Babylon, where he died. Dicit. Ctesias eum BabyUmem aceessisse, et tin lignum cuUro polientem, tempus ut falleret, cum femoris percussisset muscti- Zum, nwrtuum esse. Babylon must, therefore, have already belonged to Persia ; and Ctesias must have believed that the queen of the Euphrates had been taken by Cyrus, the father of Cambyses, and conqueror of Croesus and Astyages.

" Bishop Patrick thinks that the tabernacle was built on Mount iSion, not on Mount Moriah.

424 Correspondence, [J^7>

80 called, that is the sanctuary, we are told was left desolate and unrepaired — which fact is referred to both by Daniel and Haggai, the prophets — until the second year of a prince named Darius. Zenibbabel, accompanied by Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah, and Mordecai, it was observed, then came up to Jerusalem, as related by Josephus, and in the book of £sdras, and also in the book of Ezra, — if we allow, as we ought, an interral of many years between the first and second chapters of Ezra, — and in the reign of Darius rebuilt, first, the altar, on the site of its old foundations, and then the temple, byn, on the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of that king's reign, as attested by the prophet Zechariah.

Rejecting, however, the chronology of Josephus, who supposes that the first return of the Jews, in the reign of Cyrus, took place as early as the year B.C. 559, and that Nehemiah's return was not till about one hundred and twenty years later ; and, assuming the identity of Darius the Mede, of Daniel, with Darius the son of Hystaspes, a position which I believe to be impregnable, I pointed out how Zerubbabel and his companions thus restored the altar and temple, not in the year b.c. 559, but in the year b.c. 492, when Darius had reached the age of sixty-three years, as recorded by Daniel, so that the arrival of Zerub- babel and his companions took place not more than about sixty years before the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah ; and thus, Nehemiah might, as Newton argues, have sealed the covenant with those priests which came up with Zerubbabel. To this arrangement, both your correspondents, who support the common dates, necessarily demur. In one of them we may recognize the hand of our logical friend, the late Fellow of Trinity. The other is the well known and ingenious writer, Mr. Savile. The arguments of the first are not weighty, and may be dismissed without much consideration.

He labours through twelve tedious pages to prove : 1. That Jose- phus and Sir I. Newton do not agree with me in their chronology. 2. That Josephus identifies Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar, who laid the foundation of the house of God in the reign of Cyrus. 3. That, although that historian distinctly places the rebuilding of the altar and the temple by Zerubbabel, in the time of Darius, the son of Hystaspes, and not in the reign of Cyrus, he must be understood as placing the event in the earlier of these two reigns. 4. That those who agree with me must necessarily suppose that ''the Jews were satisfied to be without an altar of burnt-offering, and, consequently, that they offered no sacrifices, according to the law of Moses, during the whole period which elapsed between the close of the first year of Cyrus and the second year of Darius (p. 154).

I. Now, this latter statement is hardly honest, considering that I had. already observed that " all the duties of the house of God had been performed,'* in the reign of Cyrus, in or about the tabernacle ; and, being untrue, it is quite without weight or logical application, as regards the question at issue. Josephus, indeed, qualifies the idea of the Jews having offered sacrifices so early as on their first arrival, with the words : ** I mean after the rebuilding of their city, and the revival of the ancient

1863.] Biblical Chronology. 425

practices relating to their worship." The temporary tahernacle and altar, however, were, no doubt, soon set up afler their arrival at Jeru- salem.

II. With regard to the chronology of Josephus. It is perfectly true, as your correspondent states, that it does not agree with mine. But does it agree, it may be asked, with that of your correspondent ? Has he any desire to be found in unison with Josephus, in the outline of his chronology 7 Can any chronologist, in these days, desire to adopt the dates of Josephus, as regards the time of the return of the Jews from their captivity ? If not, where is the logical application of his remark ? Clearly, it has none.

III. The shuffling of words, by which he attempts to mislead the reader into the belief that Josephus means to say exactly the contrary to what he does say, with regard to the time when the altar and temple were rebuilt, is neither creditable to his ability nor to his integrity of purpose ; and the broad fact still remains untouched, — and it is a remarkable and most important fact, — that Josephus, and the author of the book of Esdras, whether right or wrong, were both of opinion that the altar was first set " on its bases," and the temple on its foun- dations, in the reign of Darius, and not before; and that the third chapter, therefore, of the book of Ezra, contains the history of events which took place in that reign.

Let him, then, accept this fact for what it is worth, without pre- ▼arication, however adverse, as it undoubtedly is, to his preconceived notions.

IV. It is quite true, as your correspondent observes, that Josephus identifies Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, and that he places his first Coming to Jerusalem as early as the reign of Cyrus. It was not in- tended to deny that Josephus entertained this idea. Nevertheless, it was and is the intention of the writer to affirm, that Zerubbabel did not come to Jerusalem from Babylon till about thirty years later than Sheshbazzar, nor till towards the end of the long reign of Darius, and, moreover, that he was not Sheshbazzar.

The whole argument of your correspondent, if he has put forth any, turns upon the identity of these two individuals, and he is put to great straits in his attempt to establish this position. He remarks that certain modern writers, such as Calvin, Diodati, Ussher and others, have accepted the identity ; and then profoundly adds, that the predic- tions of Isaiah (xliv. 28) and Jeremiah (2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 ; Ezrai. 1), would have been more completely fulfilled on the supposition of their identity, than on the supposition that they were two different persons.

What a strange confusion of ideas. Ezra and Esdras distinctly affirm that Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, in the reign of Cyrus, " laid the foundations of the house of God, which is at Jerusalem," according to the command of Cyrus. What more would your corre- spondent assign to Sheshliazzar towards fulfilment of the predictions, supposing him to be identified with Zerubbabel ? The prediction was, that Cyrus should say to the temple, "Thy foundations shall be laid ;" and they were laid accordingly, at his command, by Sheshbazzar.

n

426 Correspondence. [Julj^

Does he mean to say that the prediction included a special reference to Zerubbabel ? This pointless observation, your correspondent is pleased to call an '' almost decisive argument *' for the identity of the two. His chief appeal, however, he says, is to Ezra himself.

Xhe prophet Zechariah has written : '' the hands of Zerubbabel have laid the Jbundaiion of this house : his hands shall also finish it" (Zech. iv. 9). Your correspondent thinks it ''not unlikely" that Ezra would have understood the laying of the foundation of the house by Shesh- bazzar, to be the same transaction as the laying of the foundation alluded to by Zechariah. But here, again, is the same confusion of ideas. It is not at all likely that Ezra would have made so great a mistake : and Zechariah has done all that writer could do to prevent such critics as your correspondent from falling into such an error, by defining, with exactness, the time when Zerubbabel laid the foundation of the temple, Vs^n. in order to distinguish it from the time when the foundation of the house m was laid by Sheshbazzar. He writes : *' Let your heads be strong, ye that hear in these days (that is, in the days of Darius,) these words by the mouth of the prophets (that is, Haggai and Zechariah,) which are in the day that the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid (by Zerubbabel), that the temple might be built" (Zccb. viii. 9).

To suppose, therefore, that Ezra identifies the two events as one, is a gross blunder on the part of your correspondent ; and he merely shews that, as far as his ability is concerned, no proof can be drawn from the canonical book of Ezra, that Zerubbabel was the same as Sheshbazzar, or that Zerubbabel returned earlier than the reien of Darius ; while, on the other hand, the Jewish historian, who had the whole history before him, distinctly affirms that he did not return till this particular reign to build the temple.

v. Your correspondent expresses an earnest hope that " the Royal Asiatic Society will not suffer their journal to be again employed in the support of this untenable perversion of sacred and secular history," viz., the identification of Darius the Mede with Darius son of Hvs- taspes, — a gasping hope that an enquiry, which disturbs his settled though confused notions, but which had evidently occupied the mind of Newton, may not be suffered even space for argument, that is to say, that while he is making his feeble and fruitless efforts in The Journal of Sacred Literature to put it down, the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society will be kindly pleased not to take it up. .

Without stopping to observe upon the philosophy or modesty of this request, we may take occasion to draw attention to the invaluable ser- vices daily rendered by the Asiatic Society to the science of chronology, by the discoveries published in their Journal. Your correspondent will be grieved to learn, as stated in the January Journal, that one of Sir Henry Bawlinson's late discoveries has established, on a sure founda- tion, the position of the reign of Uzziah, king of Judah, to a single 3Tar, as laid down in our reckoning ; and as, according to the Hebrew text, corroborated both by Josephus and Demetrius, there are about one hundred and seventy years from the last year of Uzziah, u.c. 734, thus

1868J Biblical Chronology. 427

fixed, to the fall of Jerusalem, and, as I presume, your correspondent would not place less than about fifty years between the fall of Jerusalem and Darius the Mede, making together two hundred and twenty from Uzziah to Darius, it would seem that the deduction of 220 years from B.C. 734 would bring us to the year B.C. 514, or the eighth year of Darius, son of Hystaspes. So that, unless your correspondent is pre- pared to dispute the testimony of the combined authorities just referred to, the Royal Asiatic Society, through one of its most distinguished members, has already gone far to prove the inference, which he so much dreads, viz., the identity of those two kings.

YI. Your correspondent has remarked that the chronology of Sir I. Newton is not in unison with mine. This again is true. But what then ? I have twice endeavoured to point out that the chronology of Sir Isaac Newton is at variance with his facts ; and that, while I reject his chronology," which is merely the common reckoning, I rejoice to find myself in unison with the great philosopher as regards historical facts. For the third time, perhaps, I may be allowed to repeat :

1st. That Sir I. Newton, as an astronomer, steadily adhered to the date, B.C. 585, as that of the eclipse of Thales, though to the great con* fusion of his own chronology.

2nd. That he considered Darius the Mede to be the son and sac- sessor of Ahasuerus II., son of Astyages, who married in the year of the eclipse.

3rd. That he fixed the time of the dedication of the wall of Jeru- salem, by Nehemiah, to the year b.c. 436, that is to say, exactly sixty- two Sabbatical weeks before the birth of Christ.

4th. That he interpreted the seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks of Daniel, " unto Messiah, the prince," as signifying the period of a jubilee, and of sixty-two weeks ending with the birth of Christ.

5th. That he considered Nehemiah, who dedicated the wall of Jeru- salem in B.C. 436, to have been contemporary with the priests and Levites who came up with Zerubbabel.

Now, it must be obvious, even to the understanding of your corre- spondent, that these premises lead to but one conclusion, viz., that both Darius the Mede, and the son of Hystaspes, were living at the same time : and there can be little doubt, therefore, that it had passed through the mind of Newton to prove their identity. Being compelled, how- ever, to bring his historical facts within the iron limits of the received chronology of his day, which he was unable to set aside, he has marred his own chain of proof, by misplacing the eclipse in the reign of Cyaxares son of Astyages, instead of in the reign of Cyaxares father of Astyages, contrary to the evidence before him. He has rendered his valuable identification of Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah, with the companion of Zerubbabel, ridiculous, by adhering to a chronology which makes him thus to have lived to the age of more than one hundred and twenty years : and he has violently severed the "seven weeks" of Daniel

« This your correspondent, with his nsuaJ logical acuteness, calls sheltering myself under the wings of Sir I. Newton.

428 Correspondence. [J^y>

from the ** sixty-two" weeks which immediately follow, finding it impos- sible, according to that chronology, that a period of jubilee conld have preceded the sixty-two weeks.

The observation of your correspondent, therefore, that Sir I. New- ton's chronology differs from my own, is again without application to the argument against which it is directed.

So much for the observations of our logical friend. Let as now turn to Mr. Savile, who writes : " If Mr. Bosanquet were to succeed in curtailing the received chronology, as he proposes, I apprehend it would be necessary, not only to set aside the dates of the great eras of the eighth century B.C., viz., those of the Olympiads, of the building of Home, and of Nabonassar, but also to re-write the histories of Herodotus, Xenophon, and Diodorus, the canon of Ptolemy, the fragments of Manetho, and the Parian Marble, all of which unite at present to confirm what the world has, for so many ages, agreed to receive as truth" (p. 155.)

No doubt Mr. Savile believes what he has here written to be true. I have no doubt, also, that he will much regret to find that this sweep- ing misrepresentation of what I have written is entirely without founda- tion. He has, clearly, never made himself master of the chronological arrangement which I have propounded. Should he think it vrorth while to do so before he next takes up the subject, he may inform himself, at the expense of a very few shillings, by procuring the last number of the Transactions of the Chronological histitute.^ He will there find how, by reference to the very same authorities to which he alludes, I have necessarily been brought to the conclusion that his date, B.C. 1014, for the building of the temple of Jerusalem by Solomon is quite untenable. He thinks that the Parian Marble must be re-written, if the received chronology is curtailed, as I suggest. Did Selden, Marsham, and Pri- deaux re-write the marble, when they pointed out that the first year of Alyattes, king of Lydia, was there set down as the year b.c. 605 ? If Mr. Savile reverences the authority of the marble, he ought, in con- sistency, to conclude with me, from that document, that king Alyattes did not fight the great battle which took place in his sixth year, and which was put an end to by a solar eclipse, either in the year b.c. 610, or B.C. 603 : and, if not in either of those years, then that he fought that battle in no other year than b.c. 585, considering that that is the only other year in which a suitable eclipse occurred, as every astronomer will tell him ; and thus he will find that the Parian Marble confirms the statement of all ancient authors, who invariably place the event about that year. As regards the authority of the marble, I have availed myself of this invaluable record** to fix the first year of the tyranny of Pisistratus in b.c. 560, and the first year of Darius son of Hystaspes, after the death of Gambyses, in b.c. 517, which latter date, if I mistake not, Mr. Savile would prefer to see rewritten in another form. I have also pointed out< how the accuracy of the Marble, as regards the reign

• Published by H. G. Bohn.

p Trans. Chron, Inet.^ part iii., vol. ii., pp. 12 and 95.

f Ihid., p. 92.

1863.] Biblical Chronology. 429

of AljatteSy has been confirmed by a discovery made by Sir H. Rawlin- son, concerning the reign of Gyges» king of Lydia, into which there is no time now to enter. I do not reject, but rest upon the authority of, the Parian Marble.

But, if the battle fought by Alvattes was in B.C. 585, Mr. Savile will, I am confident, readily admit that the battle of Carchemish, which is always placed a few years after the eclipse, must have been fought about the year b.c. 582. Now, the battle of Carchemish was fought in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah: and if the fourth year of Jehoiakim was B.C. 582, the fourth year of Solomon, or the year in which the building of the temple was commenced by Solomon, was not, as Mr. Savile supposes, b.c. 1014, but b.c. 990. Lepsios has already adopted this date, or nearly so: and in the Chronological Transactions (p. 49) to which I have referred, I have shewn that b.c. 990 is the date of the building of the temple, according to the canon of Demetrius, and also according to the Tyrian annals cited by Josephus. But, again, Mr. Savile accuses me of altering the Olympiads. If he will have the goodness to turn to page 3 1 of the treatise to which I have referred, he will find that I have pointed out how Abydenus reckoned one hundred and sixty-seven years from the first Olympiad to the end of the Assyrian empire, which I have, therefore, placed in B.C. 610, thus accepting B.C. 77 (i as the date of the first Olympiad. In page 14, he will find that I have placed the date of the conquest of Egypt, by Cam- byses, with Diodorus, in the sixty-third Olympiad, b.c. 525, and in page 54, I have made three references to the Olympiads, as commonly reckoned. Will Mr. Savile, therefore, point out which of the Olympiads he conceives that I have altered ?

With r^rd to the era of the building of Rome, I am not aware of any instance in which I have had occasion to refer to this era, in the course of my investigation of Scripture chronology. If I had occasion to do so, however, I should probably take the ordinary date, b.c. 753, though it is somewhat uncertain. I cannot conceive what can have induced Mr. Savile to charge me with altering the era of the foundation of Rome.

Nor am I aware of having altered the third great era of the eighth century B.C., viz., the era of Nabonassar.

That era is fixed upon the immoveable foundation of eclipses, and no one, I conceive, would be hardy enough to presume to alter it by a single year. I trust, therefore, that Mr. Savile will withdraw his accusation, that I have been guilty of anything so silly. Nevertheless, when I find that, without reference to astronomical data, and unsupported by any early authority, the compiler of the canon of Ptolemy has placed the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the years of that era before the date of the eclipse of Thales, after which he most undoubtedly reigned, I do feel myself justified in protesting, not against the accuracy of the era of Nabonassar, but against the accuracy of the compiler of that canon. Mr. Savile himself has ventured to difier from the canon, as regards the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. No one, however, would accuse him, for so doing, of having altered the era of Nabonassar.

If Mr. Savile will examine the little treatise to which I have referred

430 Correspondence, U^^h

bim, I am sure that he will be prepared to admit that my rejection of the received chroDology of the first millenary b.c, does not merely rest upon the assumption of the identity of Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, with Darius. the Persian, the son of Hystaspes, and that some reparation is due to me for the chronological heresies, and ana- chronisms, with which he has unjustly charged me/

Claymore, 2oth May, 1863. I. W. Bosanuubt.

THE HARE AS A RUMINANT.

Thb opinion that the Hare chews the cud seems to be in part confirmed by Aristotle.

This first zoologist writes, that *<all animals which hare many stomachs have also what is termed irvetiav, or coagulum, — but of those that hare one atomach the Dasypus has it." Again he adds, exe« ^

mferiav, to /lev fAijfWKo^ovra iravra."^" all rumiuantS have a COOffulum ;

and the reason he assigns for the Dasypus having coayulum is, "because he feeds on juicy grass," {De Animal Hist., lib. iii., caps. 15, 21). This vverla, Pyetia, or coayulum, seems to be that milk which curdles in the second stomach of ruminants.

What exact species of animal the Dasypus {thich or hairy foot) was, is by no means clear from Aristotle, but it is translated " Hare — Lopus'*

Again, Pliny apparently follows Aristotle in much the same account, although with Pliny the Dasypus and the Lepus are distinct animals, as we learn from this passage ; " Lepus omnium prsedae nascens, solas prfieter Dasypodem superfsetat," (Nat. Hist., viii. 81 ; and vide lib. z., cap, 83).

The Arnebeth, as far as I am aware, is never translated Dasypus in the Bible, yet the Latin and our English Versions render it Lepus and Hare. In the Greek Septuagint it is Choerogryllius, an unknoum animal, and which, I believe, is only to be met with among the Greek classics, in the Scholiast's note, on the 7vXiov, in v., 527* oi the Eirene of Aristophanes. The Scholiast there says, cVti he. xal ^^ov, ov /ic/cvi^toi

2w0^wy *H/MucX«<9 TI/A709 rp)\i6v rC i<m Be o tcaKovjiieyoi wro tivwv Xoipof^/pvWiov.

May 22nd, 1863, London. John Hogg.

[In oompliance with the wish of Mr. Hogg, we append his two letters to the Globs of April 13th and 20th. Ed. /. 8. L.]

SiR,-^! have just read with great pleasure the Bishop of Manchester's letter to the Bishop of Natal, which appeared in your paper of the 4th instant. You will, I trust, allow me to make a few observations on it. The letter is dated April 21st, 1863, but this is doubtless a misprint. The learned writer quotes the passage in Leviticus zi. 6, from our English version as " The Hare, because he cheweth the cud,^^ and he then adds, '* you cite Professor Owen as your authority for the untruth

' We shall positively not insert any more letters upon a controversy which is growing wearisome.— Ed. /. S. L.

1863.] The Hare as a Ruminant. 481

of tbe statement." Now eyery zoologist, and most sportsmen, know that the Hare does not chew the cud. His lordship afterwards writes, "But are you ignorant that the Vatican manuscript, as published by Cardinal Carafa in 1587> reads, 'the Hare, because he does not chew the cud;' and that this same reading was also given by Aldus in 1518, by Cephaleeus in 1526, and by Melancthon in 1545 V* I find this statement is perfectly exact.

In the common Greek Septuagint from the Vatican Codex (I refer to the Cambridge edition, 1665), the words are in Leviticus xi. 6 — Kal

TOP xotpoypvWtoVf on ovk dvayci ^rjpvKifffiov rovro; SO again in David

Millius's beautiful and accurate edition of the same Codex, published at Amsterdam in 1 725, the same words occur. And in the VaricB Lec- tiones Codicia Lugdunenns, cum edit. Rom. collatse, printed in that edition, in that verse are given — x^^P^^iP^^^*^^ Impres.=xo</>o7vXX«oi^, MS., and on ovk ava^et, Iropres. =abest media vox ovk, MS. But in the Alexandrine Codex, as printed at Oxford, 1 707, in Grabe's splendid edition, the words in Lev. xi. 6 are, koI tov xoipoypvWiov, on avd'^ei fiijpvKtfffiov TovTo, — without the ovk, or not ; and which our Authorized Version has followed. The like words occur again in Deut. xiv. 7; but in this passage the two Greek versions and our English Bible agree in the omission of the ovk and not.

What the animal may have been, which is here termed xoH^oypvWio^ '—Chceroffryllius, — is very uncertain ; and one would conclude that it is not the Hare, which in Greek is Xa'^w^f, Lagooa, The beginning of the Greek compound would designate some kind of stoine, or a swine-like quadruped; and the second part means ^run^tn^, or Kgrunter, ypvWiotf, being the diminutive of 7/9i;\\o9, which is derived from ^/it'^w, to grunt; hence xo«/»o7i;\\£09 in English would signify the "little-grunting swine." And I see in Hederic's Lexicon, edit. 1727., sub. voc, this interpreta- tion is given: — ** x^^P^'^P'^^^^^^y tjXow ix^voi x^P^^^o^, erinaceus, seu echinus terrestris;*' — which means a kind of Hedgehog, and conse- quently very different from a Hare; the former being a carnivorous animal, and the latter a rodent.

I have not yet been able to refer sufficiently to the original word in the Hebrew text, which is Amebeth in both passages. Whether, indeed, a Hedgehog, or a kind of Swine, or a Hare be intended, — none of these sorts of animals, as is well known, ever ruminate or " chew the cud." I am, however, strongly inclined to consider that the animal Amebeth, and in Greek Chcerogrylliue, may have been a ruminant, which has at this day either been lost or become scarce and unknown. And if so, I should say, that the ovk in the Vatican edition, in Levit. xi. 6, is an interpolation; because the same animal cannot possibly be a non-ruminant, and a ruminant also; or, in other words, both a rodent and a rnminant. I may as well add, that the Latin version, or Biblia Sacra, by Tremellius and Junius, Amst. 1669, coincides with our authorized text, in Levit. xi. 6, and in Deut. xiv. 7, in rendering the Hare (Leporem), or animal (whatever it may have been), as "cud- chewing" or ruminant.

So, again, in Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German,

482 Correspondence. [July*

the meaning ia^ in both texts, the same as our English reading, tiz., that "the Hare chews the cud." — Der Hose Wiederkauet. But who would contravene, or consider as false, any text in lloly Scripture upon such grounds ?

I have not yet had leisure to read Bishop Colenso's work, but if this be a specimen of his mode of ruminating on, and picking holes in, the accuracy of the Bible, I trust the world will not be imbued Vitb his criticisms, or led into any serious questions of doubt. —

I am. Sir,

Yours, etc., April 9th, 1863. J. H.

P.S. — I ought, however, to state in favour of the translation of " hare " in the different Bibles, in those texts that Dr. Shaw (in his General Zoology) says, that "when hares are considered with anatomical exactness, they exhibit some peculiarities of structure, by which they make an indistinct approach to the ruminating animals; and that the common hare is, by many persons, supposed actually to ruminate. This opinion has been derived not merely from the peculiar motions observable in the mouth, which present an obscure appearance of rumi- nation, but from the structure of the stomach, which is marked, as it were, into two regions by a particular ridge." — Bingley's Brit, Qvac^ rupeda, p. 289.

Sir, — I am obliged for your insertion of my former letter on the Hare being a ruminant, but as I said that I had not then been able to refer to the Hebrew text with sufficient attention, I now wish to add a few additional remarks on this subject — chiefly for those who take an interest in the accuracy of the text of the various Biblical translations, and who have not many Bibles in different languages to consult.

Having returned to London I have just examined Cardinal Mai's recent edition of the Vatican Codex, published at Rome in 1 857, and found that it omits the word ovk in Levit. xi. 6; and, consequently, I conclude that that word is an interpolation in the earlier and common editions of the Vatican LXX.

Again, I see the words — Ha Ameheth — "the Arnebeth" — in the Hebrew text, are without the not, both in Levit. and in Deut. : iu the first it states, " the Arnebeth, because it makes the cud to ascend." So the Latin Vulgate has — " Lepus quoque, nam et ipse ruminat."

And in the Cbaldee, Hebrew, Samaritan, Arabic and Syriac texts, according to Bryan Walton's Polyglott Bible, they all agree in the omission of the not, and state that (the quadruped under consideration, or) the Hare does " chew the cud."

When, therefore, so many editions coincide in the statement that a particular animal is a ruminant, there would seem to be no doubt, but that it was considered a fact, and the only doubt which remains is, as to what kind of animal the original word Arnebeth is intended to apply.

I am. Sir, yours, etc., London, April 16th. J. H.

1863.] Rumination of the Hare, 433

RUMINATION OF THE HARE.

Professor Owen's statement that '' the hare does not chew the cod ; it has not a ruminating stomach/' is only part of the truth, and is, perhaps, partly untrue. He has borrowed some of the words of Buffon, but is not equally candid. ** Quelques auteurs out assur^ que les lievres ruminent ; cependant, je ne crois pas cette opinion fond^, puisqu'ils n'ont qu'un estomac, et que la confomation des estomscs et des autres intestins est toute differente dans les animauz ruminans," {Hist. Nat, xxiv., 205.) Michaelis, whose great work on the Mosaic law should be studied by all who undertake to criticize any part of it, in his instructions to the commission sent out by the King of Denmark (15 December, 1760) directs attention to this question; but as all of the commissioners died, except the father of the homan historian, Con- rad Niebuhr, who was merely a mathematician, such question remains unsettled so far as that commission was concerned. J^ichaelis says (p. 283n) *' Yielleicht erfahre ich etwas gewissers, da ich darum gebeten habe, im bevorstehenden Sommer junge Haasen zahm aufzuziehen, und denn darauf Acht zu geben was das sey, welches viele Forster mit Grewiszheit fur ein Wiederkauen halten wollen;" — with what result, I have never learnt ; but, according to Eitto, the poet Cowper, who domesticated three tame hares, says, "they chewed the cud all day long till evening." Hence it appears that Professor Owen is better acquainted with dead hares than living ones. Nature appears to delight in con- founding philosophers, for Blumenbach says, " I have known two men who ruminated their vegetable food : both assured me that they had a real enjoyment in doing this, which has also been observed of others ; and one of them had the power of doing it or leaving it alone according to circumstances" {Penny Cye,, xx. 223). Will Professer Owen affirm that these men had or had not "ruminating stomachs?" But I will take the Ait ftn animal the habits of which should have been more carefully studied by Professor Owen when he put together the bones of the megatheroid Mylodon, which although it has a " ruminating stomach" and lives on vegetable food only, does not ruminate {Penny Cye., i. 232). In further illustration of the inevitable ignorance of scientific philoso- phers I will name Aristotle, who always uses the word Saav7rov9 for hare and not \ayuf9.*^ Now the word ^affvirov^ is not the proper word for hare, but means rabbit in other Greek authors, as Athenaeus and the Septua- gint (Lev. xi. 5 ; Dent. xiv. 6). And so little did the latter know of the amebeth of the Hebrew, that they translated it hedgehog instead of hare ; this, however, was done ignorantly, for all the other ancient versions, like ours, render it hare. As to the assertion of Dr. Prince Lee, bishop of Manchester, that the word ovk should be introduced to contradict the Hebrew text, which says that the hare " raises the cud or bolus," he might as well say the word not should be left out of the seventh commandment, because in some Bibles it happened to be so printed. It is easy to understand why " no^" should be;^nserted when

' This word once occurs, but I take it to be a gloss to Miew that Aristotle was mot speaking of the rabbit.

NEW SERIES. — VOL. 111., NO. VI. F P

434 Correspondence. [July,

the hedgehog, not the hare, was spoken of. But Dr. Lee should know that as respects the Septuagint, the negative is not found in the Vatican, Complatensian and Parisian exemplars, and the rumination is affirma- tively spoken of by Origen and Theodoret, and by all the ancient Hebrew MSS. and versions, except some blundering copies of the Greek. The Vulgate, although adhering to the hare in the sixth verse, erroneously substitutes for the coney, the hedgehog, follovring the Chaldee Targum of Onkelos. See Bochart (iii., xxxii., 996, 997).

Liehfieldy 2Ut May^ 1863. Thomas John Buckton.

JOHN THE BAPTISTS KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS PREVIOUS TO THE BAPTISM OF THE LATTER.

The descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus at his baptism is justly regarded as affording a strong proof of his divine mission. The force of this proof is readily observed, so far as it rests in the extraordinary nature of the occurrence, including the explicit testimony then given by the voice vrhich was heard from heaven. But there is another point of view in which the event is possessed of peculiar value as evidence, that is not so often perceived. Its importance is greatly enhanced from the circumstance of its having been a previously appointed sign. That it was so, we learn from a declaration made by the Baptist in informing his hearers of the authority on which he acted in pointing out Jesus as *' The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," — ^the person of whom he had said, ** After me cometh a man which is pre- ferred before me: for he was before me.'' He tells them that, at the time when he received his commission to preach and to baptize, he did not know who the person was whose way he should in this manner prepare ; but that a certain token had been communicated to him whereby he would afterwards be able to distinguish him; and that this token was the descent of the Holy Spirit. ** I knew him not, but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not, but he thai sent me to baptiae with water, the same eaid unto me. Upon whom thou shalt see the tfpirit deseendinp, and abiding on him, the same ie he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God" (John i. 31—34).

But this account of John's recognition of our Lord is apparently inconsistent with the narrative of the circumstances connected with his baptism, recorded b^ Matthew. Here John says that he knew him not until he saw the Spirit descending from heaven upon him. Whereas in Matthew we read that, before this descent, when Jesus came to be baptized, John hesitated about applying the ceremony to him, saying, '* I have need to be baptized of thee, and oomest thou to me?" And we find that it was only after our Lord's reply, "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," that he consented.

1868.] John the Baptist's Knowledge of Jesus, 435

Now this conversation evidently implied that Jesus was already known to John: else why would the latter address him as he did? why would he make any distinction between him and the others who came to him for baptism ?

The solution of this difficulty seems to be, that John's statement that he knew not Jesus does not necessarily intimate anything more than that he did not recognize him in a certain capacity I — he aid not know that He it was who should baptize with the Holy Ghost ; and so his words do not in the least deny a previous personal acquaintance.

As» according to the flesh, they were relatives, it is likely that some degree of intiioacy had been maintained between them ; while at the same time it may never have occurred to the mind of John that his friend was the Great Being whose coming it was his mission to annonnce.

It is possible that John the Baptist did not understand that the Messiah and the Lord, whose way he was engaged in preparing, were to be one and the same person. He may have thought that the office of the one would be quite distinct from that of the other. And we find that he never represented them as identical; he never speaks of the Lord of whom he prophesied, as the Christ. He refers to him as one coming after himself, to be preferred before him, inasmuch as he was before him; one who should confer a miraculous baptism; one who should separate the good from the bad; but never as the Christ. So that even had he recognized Jesus as the Messiah, it is not at all necessary that he should have known Him as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world."

But even supposing that John had conjectured that there would be some dose connexion between the Christ and him of whom he preached, and that he knew that Jesus was Christ; still all uncertainty on the snbject would not necessarily have been removed; for his views respecting the Messiah may have been as indefinite as those commonly held by the Jews. He may have imagined with them that there would be two Messiah; one suffering, the other triumphant. If such were his opinions, he would probably identify Jesus, whose appearance and station in this life were so humble, with the former rather than with the latter. And so, even should he have already recognized Jesus as the Christ, he may have been still expecting the glorified Messiah as he who would take the chief place in the kingdom of heaven.

In all this we have been assuming that John knew Jesus as the Christ, which, perhaps, is more than we are warranted in doing. If, indeed, he had been aware of all the miraculous circumstances that attended our Lord's birth, he could have but yerj little doubt on the subject. His parents were acquainted with them. The near rela- tionship of his mother, Elisabeth, to Mary, the mother of our Lord, had brought them both into close and confidential intercourse. But when John was born his parents were already far advanced in years, and probably they both died while he was still young, so that he may have never heard from them the remarkable story, or it may not have made any permanent impression upon his youthful mind.

The intimacy, too, between Zacharias and Elisabeth, and the re-

p f2

436 Correspondence. [July,

I)Qted parents of Jesas mast haTe been soon interrupted throngh the atter being obliged to flee to Egypt, where they remained until the death of Herod. And when Joseph and Mary returned to their native land, it was to Galilee they went to dwell ; whereas Elisabeth and her husband must have lived in Judeea, since the duties of his office as priest would require Zacharias to reside within a limited distance from the temple at Jerusalem. The subject of the nativity of Jesus would not then be brought so constantly before the minds of the latter as otherwise it is reasonable to suppose it would; and it may not have had much place in their conversation with each other and with their son.

And if from any of these circumstances the matter had not beea brought under the notice of John« or had escaped his recollection, it does not appear that there was anything else that, up to the period of his baptism, could intimate to him that Jesus was the Christ. We cannot perceive any traces of there having been anything very extra- ordinary apparent in the childhood of onr Lord. The legendary miracles that have been ascribed to him during his infancy could have had no foundation in fact, for had any taken place they must have caused him to be regarded by the people, who were familiarly acquainted with him, as some remarkable being; whereas we find that they looked upon him merely as the son of the carpenter, and that when afterwards they saw his miracles they enquired with astonish- ment, '* whence hath this man these mighty works ? " And his mother's surprise at the hints he gave, when she found him sitting iu the temple, respecting his divine mission, is inconsistent with the supposition that she had been -constantly witnessing miracles performed by him.

We observe, then, that we have no evidence that John the Baptist knew Jesus to be the Christ prior to the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him at his baptism ; and that even if he had known him as the Christ, it does not follow that he knew him as the Lord whose way he had been commissioned to prepare, as he may have been ignorant that the two offices were to be held by the same individual, or may have imagined that there was to be a second Christ who should be the Son of God.

But here it may be asked. If John had not previously recognized Jesus as the Son of Grod, why did he hesitate to baptize him ? Had he known him to be the Christ this is easily answered. On account of the great dignity of his office he might regard it as unbecoming that the Messiah should submit to his baptism. But if he had not thus recog* nized Jesus, then it must have been his holiness of character that caused John to think baptism in his case unnecessary. The baptism of Joha was eminently a baptism of repentance^ and he had never known Jesus to be guilty of a single sin whereof he should have to repent. Any previous knowledge that he had of the Saviour must have led him to admire his perfect purity.

On the whole, then, we conclude that the statement of John that he knew not Jesus, signifies that, though he had been already acquainted

1863.] Description of an JEthiopic Octaieuch. 437

with him, yet he had not known him as he that should baptize with the Holy Ghost until he received the previously appointed sign from heaven ; and so it harmonizes completely with his manifest recognition of him when he came to be baptized.

A. B. W.

DESCRIPTION OF A MS. iETHIOPIC OCTATEUCH.

Your readers may possibly be interested in the following description of a magnificent MS. ^thiopic Octateuch, t. e., the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, the property of the British and Foreign Bible Society, which, although noticed at some length in the Report of the Church Missionary Society (to which it then belonged) for 1817-18, yet deserves a more accurate and extended description.

This volume, which is in the form of a small folio 1 5 inches by 8, consists of 285 stout parchment folios, or 570 pages with double columns on each,' and with the exception of one folio, which has been replaced on paper, is in perfect preservation. It was executed at Axum, the ancient metropolis of the Abyssinian realm, for the use of the Abyssinian monks at Jerusalem, by a scribe, as appears from an Arabic note on folio 3, named Rebea Ibn Elias, and was presented to his brethren by Isaac, king of ^Ethiopia, in about 1350. From Jerusalem it appears, from a Latin note on the first folio, to have been brought into Europe previous to 1696, and to have been deposited in the Vatican at Rome, where it was seen by the younger Ludolf, and recognized bv Gregory, the ^Ethiopian monk and informant of the elder Ludolf, as that which, according to the tradition of his country, had been presented as above stated. From the fact of its having been sent to Jerusalem at so early a period, the text has escaped the corruptions which, during the civil and ecclesiastical commotions of Abyssinia in subsequent ages, have exerted a most prejudicial influence upon the sacred text, and has accordingly been selected by Professor Dillman as the most important of the four MSS. on which he bases the text of the ^thiopic Scriptures now issuing from the press. " Reliquos et antiquitate et auctoritate," says he, prol., p. 6, *' et bonitate longe antecedit liber iste praestan- tissimns. . . . Qui quinque vel sex ei adjudicare velit seecula, eum baud mnltum a vero aberraturum esse existimo." There are no divisions of the text into chapters and verses on the part of the scribe, though these have been added in the ordinary Arabic numerals by some Eu- ropean.

Upon a blank space at folio 8 is the rude outline of a man in the act of prayer, and with the inscription in ^thiopic, ** By the prayer of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, I, O Lord, thy servant, surrender myself in the power of the Trinity, a sinner and offender, erring and impure. Their ransom, Christ."

At fol. 9S, on a blank space at the end of Exodus, are two rude figures in outline, in the attitude of devotion.

At fol. 253, at the end of the Book of Joshua, is the following

n

438 Correspondence. [July*

list : — ''The property of the house of John and station of Mary [t. e., at Jerusalem]. The Law, the Kings, Isaiah, two Gospels, the Siook for November, tne Book for December, Chrysostom, the Didascalia, Cle- ment, the labours of the Fathers, Instructions, the Tractate of the Priests of Heaven [t. «., the twenty-four elders in Revelations], the Book of Genesis, the Book of the Lamp, the Book of Confession, the Passion of the Martyrs, the Book of John, the Tractate Michael, one Paul the Apostle, the Acts, two Synopses (by Cyril of Jerusalem), the Miracles of our Lady, and the nve books of David. Two cups of silver; one paten of beryl; ten cross-handled spoons; two thuribles of silver; one standish (for incense) of silver; two thuribles of brass ; one cross of silver; two of iron; twelve new cloaks (or palls); two tunics; twenty-four carpets (or mats); nine coverings of silk; a man's cap of silk; two vests (for monks^; two curtains."

This list is repeated at a later date and in a different handwriting, when the community seem to have augmented their library by the Acts of St. Antony, the Book of the Migration [assumption either of Enoch, Isaiah, or Mary]; the Acts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This second inventory was made at Jerusalem by Teda Waled as the deputy of pilgrims to the Holy City.

At foL 293 we read as follows, in ^thiopic: — *' Pray for those who have laboured in this writing, and for your servant Isaac who gave it to Jerusalem the Holy.''

Then in Arabic: — '* In the name of the Father, of the Son, and Holy Ghost, one God. O Lord, deliver thy people from all harm. O our God Jesus Christ, the Living One, who knowest thy creatnres — O ye saints — remember your servant Isaac the poor. God shall remember you in the mercies of this book. Pray that if God will I may be per- mitted to behold your faee; and pray for me, a sinner, that the Lord would pardon my sins. And let my body be buried in Mount Zion. Amen.

Then in ^thiopic: — " That our enemies may not say of them, We have conquered them, be ye prudent. We have given you the oxen. Perform the ploughing;. Sow ye in its furrows. Reap, rejoice."

Then in a larger ^thiopic character, of which the letters are nearly an inch tall, and white, upon a black ground: — " I am Isaac the poor. By your prayers, it was completed in Beth Gabbaza at Axum. In thy name, O Lord, have I set [my trust], that thou place me not in any other place than Mount Zion. Pray for me, ye who hear and read it."

The concluding page is probably in the handwriting of Isaac him- self, in which he prays that God would accept this book which he had given for the comfort of the brethren, and ends by desiring them not to sell, or exchange, or carry it away, or cause it to be placed elsewhere. Prayers and directions of this kind are very common at the close of ^thiopic MSS. In a magnificent collection of the hymns of Jared in my possession, from which I hope shortly to publish extracts, for instance, there occurs the following: — **Zedegua gave it to the men of Zion on the feast of Michael, and her mother, Waleta Gabriel, to be their guide to the kingdom of heaven. And she saith. Forget me not

1868.] Anecdoia Syriaca, 489

O our Father in heavra. Let him who steals or erases it be carsed, by the authoritr of Peter and Paul."

The Octateuch has on the last folio a rude and partly-coluured effigy of St. Andrew; with a book, inscribed, "The Grospel which he preached with his voice/* — meaning probably that he did not write one; and at the side, *'May his prayer and blessing be upon us." Some idle monk appears to have amused himself by transferring this picture in outline to the previous page, and converting it into a St. Peter, whose age is stated, in i£thiopic, to have been 120 years.

Thinking that perhaps this account of a perfectly unique MS. would interest your readers who take an interest in Semitic literature, and that it may be of service to record in your pages the existence of so valuable a document, I have ventured to trouble you at so great length.

J. M. Ro DWELL,

Rector of St Ethelbarga, London. Highbury New Park, March 8, 1863.

PS. It should also be mentioned that on the first folio is an illumi- nated arrangement of forty small circles, each an inch in diameter, resembling the pedigrees at the commencement of Barker's and other old English Bibles. In these circles is written in .^thiopic the legend attributed to Clement, in which Adam, at his departure from this life, enjoined on his son Seth the hours of prayer. " In the first hour of the night the spirits (genii) praise God; in the second, the fish; in the third, the fire; in the fourth, the seraphim, etc., etc." This legend is also found in the commencement of MS. F. in the library of the British and Foreign Bible Society.

ANECDOTA SYRIACA.

The criticiam of Dr. Wright on my interpretation of the colophon published by Mr. Payne Smith in his Syriac edition of the commentary of Cyril on St. Luke, compels me, for the sake of Syriac students, to make a few remarks on his arguments.

Dr. Wright pronounces my interpretation ''simply impossible," and assigns three reasons to prove this impossibility. The first and the third reasons relate to two trifling inaccuracies, if they deserve even this name. They are as follows : —

No. 1. ^M i9 said to be a perfect, and to mean "has scattered," and, therefore, is inaccurately translated by '* spargens." It appears to me that where two perfects come together without a copula, it is not uncommon to translate one of them as a participle.

No. 3. ]2.0 1 »» aud '\Lka'i£i are plurals, and they are here trans- lated in the singular. This is quite true, but it makes no difference whatever in the sense of the passage.

These two reasons might therefore be dismissed at once from our consideration, if a further question were not involved in the discussion

440 Correspondence. [J'lly*

of No. 1. The truth is that these two perfects (as Dr. Wright and Mr. Payne Smith have hoth suggested to me) are apocopated forms of the 3rd pers. plur, fem.^ and not the 3rd pers. sing. masc. Their subject is, therefore, ** the five pairs," and not *' homo " understood.

It is only just to Dr. Wright, to whom I was a stranger, to state that a few days after the publication of his remarks, I took the liberty of calling upon him at the British Museum, and that I found him quite ready to enter on the discussion of this passage with the ntmost courtesy and candour.

We come now to No. 2 of Dr. Wright's reasons, which relates to the only expression in the whole colophon which now appears doubtful

to me. That is the phrase \ 1 V)V>m O yi|%nV), or 1 V>V)m n, as Mr. Payne Smith reads it. As I am unable at present to consult the MS. itself, I do not know which of these readings is the true transcript of the original; but I think the sense is obvious. The phrase must mean, either ** mixed with pigments," e.g,^ red and black ink, etc., or " mixed with lampblack."

My own share in the interpretation of this colophon is a matter of very small importance; but as my name has been brought forward in so prominent a manner, it is only just to myself to state the exact truth. The fact is that, in a private letter to Dr. Land some years ago, I sent a copy of the colophon, accompanied by my interpretation of it, without any notion of its being published. I knew nothing of Dr. Land's intention of publishing it, until I saw it in his Anecdota Syriaca, He was, of course, quite at liberty to publish it ; but as I had no oppor- tunity of correcting the press, I am not responsible for the words lo which my interpretation is conveyed. But in the interpretation of a passage of Syriac, Dr. Land is far more able to defend his own ex- position than I should be; and therefore I leave that question in his hands. As far as I can remember I did not substitute yn^So for yi.V>V), nor did I suggest the insertion of '^ homini." But it is pos- siole that in deciphering my Syriac, Dr. Land may have been misled by my handwriting, or he may have made the change from conjecture. If the latter be the case, I suppose he will hardly retain this conjecture after the observations of Dr. Wright.

My own translation, as published in a hasty notice of Mr. Payne Smith's Syriac Cyril in the Literary Churchman of Feb. I, 1859, was as follows : — *' O Lord ! refuse not the reward of the five pairs that labour to sow thv seed by means of the mixture of lampblack, by the field of animals, by the wings of birds, and by the power of Grod.

There are in this some minor inaccuracies (e.g,^ ** refuse not," and '*by the field" for ''in the field," i.e., the skin = parchment); but the real question after all is this, '' Is this interpretation of the colophon substantially true." Dr. Wright states that "he does not pretend to be able to translate this sentence;" and the best Syriac scholar in England (as I believe), Mr. Payne Smith, declined to insert a translation of it in his English edition. But Dr. Wright has since very candidly admitted that my interpretation is probably substantially true; and Mr.

1863.] Biblical Chronology. 441

Payne Smith adopted my view as the most probable guess, as soon as I proposed it to him. With that courtesy and readiness with which he always pkces his vast stores of Syriac knowledge at the service of those who desire, like myself, to learn from him, he immediately discussed the passage with me, and explained the origin of his doubts. These doubts, 1 believe, no longer exist.

I must apologize for occupying so much of your space with personal details, but I feel it necessary to defend this interpretation, lest the authority of so eminent an orientalist as Dr. Wright should lead some Syriac students to doubt the interpretation of a passage, which, I believe, will now be recognized as the only one of which the passage admits.

H. T. Rose.

BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY.

If it be true that more than three hundred different opinions have been raised with reference to Biblical chronology, it seems to follow that we cannot dispense with historical testimony in order to arrive at any fixed dates. That it is only by such a process that we can establish a satisfactory basis for the settlement and adjustment of the Scriptural chronology, may, we conceive, be shewn by a reference to the evidence by which the Jewish date of the Exodus is fixed. It may be true that Bunsen may have been led by Egyptian and extraneous sources only to presume what is the range within which that date falls. Now, we would gladly and thankfully have accepted the result of his researches in this instance, if other authentic testimony had been duly recognized. As it is, we can understand those who speak of '' follow- ing Bunsen implicitly, when he leads iis in virtue of an overwhelming concurrence of Egyptian records, and of all the probabilities of the case, to place the Exodus as late as 1320 or 1314 b.c."

The general reader might be led to understand that this was a result necessarily independent of historical testimony of Scripture with which it is unconnected. When, howe?er, this strong opinion as to the date of the Exodus is accompanied by the advocacy of other dates insinu- ated on the same evidence of other than Scripture sources, we are bound to discriminate between the nature of the proof in the case of the Exodus date, and that of others by which the Scripture chronology is disturbed. The proof in the case of the Exodus date, 1314 B.C., may be stated thus. There is the testimony of Rabbi Hillel, an ancient Jewish chronologer under the Christian era, whose " expositions" were '* historical," or accepted as such. He was the framer of the "Jewish mundane era," and to him is ascribed the introduction in the middle of the fourth century of the modern Jewish calendar. It is this Hillel who, in a work based on Scriptural data, and not on sources indepen- dent of the Scriptures, fixes the Exodus at the year 1314 b.c, which is the last term of the range within which Bunsen*s dates are contained. The date thus fixed in Hillel's or the Jewish scheme is [making allow- ance for certain astronomical calculations which account for a difference

^

442 Correspondence. \jJ^^7,

of aboat two years] a oomponent part of the system of Biblical chrono- logy, the items of which are as follows : —

Years

(1) From the Creation to the Delage 1656

TheDce to the birth of Abraham 292

Thence to the birth of Isaac 100

Thence to the Exodus (Gen. xr. 13.) 400

Date of Exodoa 2448 xm.

(2) Thence to the foarth year of Solomon 480

Thence to the eleventh of Zedekiah 277

Thence to the sixth of Hezekiah 133

Thence to a.d. 1. (the seventy 'weeks being reckoned

back from a.d. 59, when Christ came in judgment

to Jerusalem) 422

Date of Exodus 1312 b.c.

Now, the argument which critical justice requires to be drawn from this result, viewed in connexion with Bunsen's (in this one instance) nearly coincident conclusion from the Egyptian records, is, that the latter evidence, as traditional, should be regarded as confirmatory of the Bible evidence, as historical. Let " an overwhelming concurrence of Egyptian records" be accepted as an independent proof of the Biblical date, but let not the Biblical date, contrary to evidence, be assumed to be derived from Egyptian sources, which is the refuted^ alternative adopted by Lepsius.

Viewed in connexion with the Hebrew records, '' not only is the historical reality of the Exodus thus vindicated" (pace Dr. Williams, we would say '* confirmed*') from heathen sources, but a presumption is raised thereby in favour of the historical character of the Bible chrono- logy, whatever may be the combination of principles needed to harmo- nize it with any universally accredited presumptions on the other side, derived from the inductive study of philological and physical science. Meanwhile, but let not the confirmation from heathen sources of a central fact and date in the scheme of Revelation be wrested to the destruction of our faith in the miraculous or praeternatural accompani- ments which the received inspired Records associate with it.

That Bunsen*s dates are part of a " theory" at variance with the Hebrew system, is evidenced in the present state of chronological inquiry by the result to which they lead — viz., 'Uhat we find but three centuries thus left us from the Exodus to Solomon's Temple," thus contradicting the date in 1 Kings vii., of four hundred and eighty years, the authenticity of which is assured to us in the received Hebrew chronology, and which has not been disproved to be incompatable with the chronology of the Book of Judges, which is followed by St. Paul. The " four hundred and fifty years " of the Judges were not necessarily consecutive intervals of time. It may have been aereeable to the Divine design that more than one judge should be raised up after Joshua at the same time in different tribes, and that the record in which their

* See Arnold's TJtcological Critic, vol. i., art. 4.

1863.] Psalm xlix. 3. 443

periods of jodgeabip are specified should be constructed without reference to the line of chronological years. So far we tbrj admit in this instance, (and elsewhere should proof be given) the absence of a merely ** chro- nological element." Would that the illustrious foreigner had been guided by this principle in its application to heathen rather than to Jewish and Christian annals ! He might then perhaps hare seen his way toward the vindication not only of the Exodus date, but of the whole system of Biblical chronology.

C. G.

BIBLE DIFFICULTIES :— PSALM XLIX. 3.

Mr. J. Mc G.'s copious remarks on this verse in your last impression (p. 172) compel me to modify one portion of my letter which appeared in the October number of the Journal, but by no means to give up the view 1, in common with others, take of the first clanse of the verse in question.

If Mr. Mc G. will only read contrasted instead of " connected " in line 9 of my letter, and omit the words, " and Prov. viii. 4," from line 13, I am still prepared to subscribe to everything else I have written on the subject. I continue to maintain that there are instances (I feel sure of oue) in which the words v}^ and trj^ are contrasted as to signification, although I readily acknowledge that in most of the exam- ples he adduces they are connected merely in poetical parallelism. The one instance I have singled out as more certain than any other I am at present aware of is the identical Psalm xlix. 3. I beg to submit that Mr. Mc G. has not produced a single clause exactly analogous to the first half of this verse. All the examples he uses in his attempt at the reductio ad abaurdutn are uniform^ and therefore one would be as good as a thousand. In all these instances the word -||, or the plural of it, accompanies dim, but not x6f*vt, and I willingly admit that in none of them do we find any contrast, but merely a poetical repetition of the same idea in different words. But in Psalm xlix. 3 I believe there must be a contrast of meaning, otherwise the words could not be trans- lated: the repetition of -»3^, and the fact that no other word is con- nected with either of the two parts of the clause to relieve their same- ness, compel us, in my opinion, to regard them as contrasted. This is necessary in order to make them tolerably translateable, and still more so if we would look for any degree of poetical beauty. Besides, I attach considerable importance to what I said in my former letter respecting the latter clause of the verse, viz., that it "is probably meant to be an explanation of the former, as is often the case in the metrical portions of Scripture." In cases when xdvt and otm are found merely in poetical parallelism, rigid sameness of the parts is prevented by the use of a different verb, the addition of -]i to the latter, or any other change, or by the concurrence of more than one kind of variety, and moreover the effect is sometimes enhanced by the athnach inter- vening. But the clause we are now discussing has nothing of the kind.

444 Correspondence, [J^tyj

The other instances compared with it cannot be pronounced upon with equal confidence, but must be studied and judged of in connexion with their respective contexts. I have no doubt, however, in my own mind that xirvi sometimes denotes ''man of high degree," and that it is more than once contrasted with dim, as mr is with komo^ dvr/p with av0pto7ro9, and in Welsh, ^u;e with dyn. Perhaps it would inteit^st the English reader to know that the authorized Welsh version of the Bible, which is considered by some competent judges to be superior to the English, regards X2npvt in Isaiah lii. 3, Psalm cxli. 4, and Prov. viii. 4, in its distinguished sense, and translates it ^U7^=viri.

Mr. Mc G. seems to maintain that the two words are perfectly syno- nymous. It is granted on all hands that they are often so, but does not x^ often mean husband as opposed to wife, man as opposed to woman (there is only one instance of xij^ being supposed to be so used, i. e., Eccles. vii. 28), a man of virile age as opposed to an old man, and a man of valour as distinguished from a coward ? (see Gesenius.) Such frequent uses of the word would alone be sufficient to give the word a distinctive superior meaning, and therefore furnish a strong presump- tion in favour of the position I am endeavouring to support. I should be very glad to know that your able correspondents, Mr. Crossley, and Q., and Dr. Davidson are still of the same opinion.

Jpril 6. J. H.

ISRxlELITE POPULATION AT THE EXODUS.

In the Christian Annotator (vol. iii., p. 477, Dec. 20, 1856) the ques- tion raised as to the increase of the Jewish population from 310 to 603,550 men of war (Gen. xv. 13; Exod. xii. 37, 40; Numb. i. 46; xi. 21 ; Acts vii. 6 ; Gal. iii. 17), was replied to by observing that the rate of increase from 310 to 2,416,000 men, women, and children in 215 years was 1^ per annum, and in 400 years, 1^ per annum. To this I may add, that the population of England and Wales had about doubled in fifty years from 1801 to 1851, whilst in the United States from 1800 to 1850 the population had quadrupled and two millions over (Compan, Brit. Almanac^ 1855, p. 25). The rule for estimating the annual increase of the Israelites is, for 215 years

2J5 .2416000=104256

^ 310 And for 400 years

^^Q ^24 1 6000= 1 0226553

310 To make this intelligible to those who are unacquainted with the use of logarithms, I will attach to the logarithms below on the left, the natural numbers on the right. I commence with the assumption, as old as Herodotus, and yet undisturbed for general historical purposes, that there are three generations in a century; rejecting for reasons

1863.]

John xix. 10^ 11.

445

assigned in the above work the limit of 215 years, of a period of 400 years.	and assuming that
Logaritbms. 2-4913617	„_	Nataral nmnbera. 310	Population. 310	Inereaae. 310	End ofyaart.
•3243113	=	1-0226553 x33i		•
2-8156730		^	816	506	m
2-4913617 .6486226	—	310 10226553x661
31399843	=	310 1-0226553x100	1380	564	661
2.4913617 •9729338
3-4642955	=	310 10226553x200	2927	1547	100
2-4913617 1-9458676
4-4372293	• ^H^	310 1-0226553x300	27,367	24,440	200
2-4913617 2-9188014
5*4101631		=	257,146	229,779	300
2-4913617 3-8917352	—	310 10226553x400
6.3830969		^	2,416,000	2,158,854 2,416,000	400

Thus the English population in half a century increased twofold, that of the United States fourfold, and that of the Israelites fivefold; that ancient people allowed polygamy, whilst the two modem nations adopt monogamy as one check to population. The above will serve to shew how rapidly a geometrical progression advances in the latter stages of a long period. The short rule is simply 310(1-0226553)^; and the increase of 1-^ person per annum out of 310 persons will not be thought extraordinary by any one, but the result is startling, because in the 400 years the 310 original persons are multiplied 7793 times, or 1 9 times each year on the average. Recent questions raised by Dr. Colenso have given new interest to this subject. Lichfield, May 21, 1863. Thomas John Buckton.

JOHN XIX. 10, 11.

I TAKE notice of T. T.'s remarks upon John xix. 10, 11, and upon my view of the passage, partly to say a few words to him personally, and partly to review his arguments. I will take no farther notice of the anecdote by which he introduces his remarks, than hint that the ** person of considerable theological attainments,'* who was first intro**

446 Correspondence. [Jiilyj

duoed by faim to S. T. Coleridge's views of the passage under considera- tion, must have been joking when he spoke as he is reported to have done ; and must have found considerable amusement in T. T.'s letter, if his perversion to popery permits him to read The Journal of Sacred Literature. That he should impute motives to myself is of more importance so far as I am concerned. Does T. T. think that none but those who advocate new views are sincere inquirers after truth ? Does he think that those who hold old views do so merely because they are old? If he does not, why should he insinuate that I was ''carried away by" my ** indignation at the novelty of " your contributor's inter- pretation ? Ordinary courtesy might have enabled him to reply to my arguments without questioning my honesty of purpose. Christian charity might have led him to the belief that I am as anxions an inquirer after the true interpretation as himself. He charges me with arguing " somewhat unfairly." With this I find no fault. He thinks so, and has a perfect right to say so, since he tries to make his charge good : with what success I leave others to determine. But be cannot know my motives, and has no right to insinuate that I support a view merely because it is old, and reject one because it is new. It u humiliating to need to make these remarks on what is due from one educated man to another.

T. T. admits that I am right in regard to Pilate's "jurisdiction in the abstract." I will not question the accuracy of the phrase, but remind T. T. that Pilate boasts of his absolute jurisdiction over a " supposed criminal:" *' Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee ?" Now did Pilate get jurisdiction from o irapaJ^ihow either to crucify or release 7 Was it not because the former had such jurisdiction in virtue of his commission from Rome, that the latter delivered our Saviour into his hands ? Does a judge's jurisdiction expire every time he leaves the bench, and revive every time a policeman brings before him a new criminal ? I do not even suffgest an answer to these questions ; for men demanding redress, or lodging an accusation, go where jurisdiction is already possessed, and not where it is to be conferred. But our Saviour's reply determines the matter beyond dispute. Every one who knows the force of the words ovK €ix«9 i^ovaiaw ovBefiuav, knows that they exclude not this, nor that, but all jurisdiction. Pilate could not but know that they struck at his i^ovala in every shape. And yet he knew that he had a commission, and so jurisdiction, to try all accused of crimes against the state. And, therefore, once more I say that he must have felt that a sillier piece of impertinence was never perpetrated by an accused person than that perpetrated by our Saviour, if his words only meant that Pilate received his jurisdiction from a Jew. But he was made to under- stand that there was supreme authority, higher even than that of Rome, which was the source of all jurisdiction, and that every one in power was responsible to that authority. He felt that the avwBcv pointed to heaven, **and from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him." T. T. confounds two things essentially distinct — jurisdiction, and ''the oppor- tunity of exercising it." It is of the first that Pihite and our Saviour

1863.] The Efiglish Bible and Dr. Benisch. 447

speak. And, therefore, thoogh it be granted that 6 vapaBiBa^^ conferred the opportunity, T. T. is no nearer his end. I do not need to take any further notice of his remarks , and only state in conclusion, that until some arguments very different from any that have been adduced are brought forward, I shall be forced to abide by the old interpretation. Rutkerglen, Uth May, 1863. J. B.

ACTS XIII. 20—22.

The chronological question connected with this passage is of such importance that it is very desirable to ascertain what meanings it is fairly capable of bearing. The space of four hundred and fifty years is usually assigned as that occupied by the successiTc judges down to Samuel. This is the only meaning which our Authorized Version is capable of bearing, but it may perhaps be thought that the Greek is capable of another sense. I would propose to Greek scholars whether the four hundred and fifty years might not possibly include the reigns of Saul and David : *' And afler these things, for a space of about four hundred and fifty years, he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet: afterwards (i, e,, afler Samuel's rule) they desired a king, and God gave them Saul, etc. : and when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David, etc." The two objections to the comprehension of Sanl's and David's reigns within the four hundred and fifty years are, 1st, the KaK€70€v of verse 21, and, 2nd, the mentioning the period of Saul's reign in the same verse. The xaKeTOev may, I think, be fairly enough referred to Samuel's judgeship, without of necessity referring also to the close of the four hundred and fifty years ; and the forty years of Saul's reign may, perhaps, be a portion of the four hundred and fifty years, not an additional period. Olsfaausen thinks the two reigns may be included : Alford denies that they can. It should be taken into account that the uarrative is a mere brief abstract of Paul's speech ; and abbreviations are of necessity obscurer than fuller accounts. The Vulgate seems to signify, that the division of the land was made after this period of four hundred and fifty years.

H.

THE ENGLISH BIBLE AND DR. BENISCH.

My object when I first addressed you on the above subject was to allay the apprehensions of those who might oppose a revision of the Au- thorized Version, on the grounds that a door might be opened to rab- binical views such as held by me as a Jewish translator, and as apparently eyidenced by my rendering of Psalm ii. 12. Now this object I have fully obtained, as your correspondent candidly states, " I believe I was wrong in attributing to him (Dr. B.) any intention of being guided in his views by the conceits of the Talmud." The discussion therefore.

ur \

448 Correspondence. \?^7i

as far as I am concerned, is brought to a close, as it is not my inten- tion to impugn the correctness of any of the statements brought forward by H. P. in support of the rendering of the Anglican Version. I will only say that the authorities referred to by him were known to me at the time I translated the Psalms, but that they failed to convey convic- tion to my mind. I had resolved when undertaking the work not to count opinions, whether of Jews or Gentiles, but to weigh arguments.

Having stated in your last my reasons for differing from the An- glican Version and the authorities supporting its rendering, I must leave it to Hebraists, and not theologians, to judge of the soundness of these reasons. I conclude with the remark, that the most popular Jewish commentator, whom the Jews call the prince of Biblical inter- preters,— I allude to Rabbi Solomon Yizchaki, commonly called Bashi, — is in favour of my rendering of *o, as may be seen by a reference to his commentary in loco.

May 29, 1863. A. Benisch.

DATE OF CODEX SINAITICUS.

I WISH to offer three concise arguments, for the belief that the Codex Sinaitictts is really of an age as early as the middle of the third century.

To the objection that the Eusebian canons are proof that its age cannot be earlier than the fourth century, may be opposed the possi- bility which Tischendorf, in his Prolegomena^ seems to make room for, that these have been added by a later hand, — a conjecture strengthened by their being found, not throughout, but partially.

In Lardner (ed. 1838, vol. vii., p. 423), we read that Porphyry, in the third century, among other Scriptures which he objected to, alleged Matt. xiii. 35; Mark i. 2 ; and John vii. 8.

In the first of these, he charged the Christians with ignorance, in ascribing to Isaiah what is found in Psalm Ixxviii. Concerning the second, he asks : " Since the quotation is composed from Malachi (chap, iii.) and Isaiah (chap, xl.), how it comes to pass that it is all said to be taken from Isaiah ?*' To this, Jerome replied : *' Ecclesiastical writers have largely answered, — but I am of opinion that the name Isaiah has been added through the fault of the transcriber." " Hence," observes Lardner, " we perceive that the name of Isaiah was read in Mark i. 2, in the copies of the third century." Lastly, Porphyry objected to the words ** I go not up" (John vii. 8) as not true and sincere. We may, from this, gather that I go not up, was what stood in the copies of his day.

Now, not one of these readings appears in the textus reeeptus.

But M of them are found in the Codex Sinaiiicus, which gives the text of all three exactly as it is shewn to have stood in the third century.

I may add that the very valuable Codex Amiatinus agrees with the Sinaiticus, in reading Isaiah in Mark i. 2, and " / go not up,'* in John vii.

1863.] Date of Codex Sinaiiicua. 449

As evidencing the independence of the Codex Sinaiticus, I refer to the Codex VatieanuSj which omits Isaiah in Matt. xiii. 35.

In Mark i. 2, the uncials are divided, some giving Isaiah; others, as A, E, F, G, "in the prophets."

In John vii., all the nndals, except D, K, M, have '' I go not np

YET."

I remark that it is hardlv conceivable, that anv one forging a manu- script in the design to pass it off as of very early date, would thus forfeit for it the credit of conformity with the most venerable uncials, and at the same time expose it to the assaults of an early heathen writer.

Assuming that the original text agreed with the Codex SinaitieiUy and with what Porphyry objected to, we may learn much from his objections.

Thus, in Matt, xiii., the words are ** spoken by the prophet," not written. Jonah prophesied what is not written in the book of Jonah (see 2 Kings xiv). So Jeremiah probably spoke what Zechariah wrote (chap. xi. 12, 13). In the Epistle of Barnabas, s. 2, and the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, ii. 53, Zechariah viii. 1 7 is quoted as from Jeremiah.

The quotation in Matt. xiii. opens in the very words of the Psalm, but substantially the same appears in Isaiah xlviii. Thus, the Psalm says : " I will open my fOMuth in a parable, I will utter dark sayings of old^ In Isaiah, we read : "I have declared the /brm^ things from the beffinning, and they went forth from my mouth.** The Psalm says : "We will not hide them." The Prophet : ''I have shewn thee hidden things." The end or object is the same.

It is a psalm of Asaph. Jerome thought the true reading might have been Asaph, not Isaiah. However, if we allow a conjecture, others might prefer to suppose the psalm written by Isaiah, and added to the coUection of Psalms.

Lastly, from Mark i. 2, in which the prophecy of Isaiah is prefaced by, and, as it were, fused together with Malachi's prophecy, we may learn the liberty with which the Spirit quotes His own earlier commu^ nications — a matter on which we need much to be instructed. . Porphyry's objection to John vii. 8 appears feeble enough. ** I go not tfp," is evidently explained by what follows, " for my hour is not yet fully come." To add " yety to the first clause would be objec- tionable, as unnecessary. D. W.

NOTES ON MARK IX. 43—50.

I HAYS selected the above passage for some critical and exegetical remarks, because, in the view I take of it, it is closely connected in subject with the passage of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (iii. 3 — 9), my commentary on which you did me the favour to insert in the April Nnmber of this Journal, and the discussion of it may serve to shew that the teaching of our Lord relative to the important matters common

NEW SERIES. — VOL, III., NO VI. G G

450 Correspondence, ' [3vlj,

to the two passages accorded with that of St. Paul. Also I have been induced to write the following Notes from the circumstance» that the author of the essay on the Interpretation of Scripture in Essays and Reviews speaks of *' Christianity being staked on the literal meaning of the words, Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." I find it hard to comprehend what especial danger to Christianity is alluded to, but being sure that none is to be apprehended from the true meaning of those words, it will be my endeavour to ascertain this witjiout respect to consequences.

Before entering upon the proposed discussion, it will be well to lay down two principles of Biblical interpretation, which, I beliere, are generally acknowledged, and may be taken as guides for conducting the reasoning. First, that besides the portions of Scripture which have a literal and historical meaning, there are others which must be taken allegorically ; and secondly, that an allegorical meaning is to be ad- mitted when the literal sense involves an absurdity, or contradiction to the nature of things. The right application of these two principles may be said to constitute nearly the whole of what may be properly called scriptural science. But in applying them it is often difficult to decide respecting a particular passage, whether it is to be taken literally or allegorically; and again, after ascertaining that the sense must be allegorical, there is generally the still greater difficulty of discovering what that sense is. These remarks will receive illustration as we proceed.

I commence with a critical note on verse 43. In the usual render* ing of this verse kclKov is translated as if it were in the comparative degree, on account of ^ following. But if mere comparison between one thing and another were intended, there appears to be no sufficient reason why the comparative degree should not have been naed. Thia objection will be obviated by taking koKov positively, and translating as if ^ were immediately preceded by ftahXov^ this being not an uncommon ellipsis. "And if thy hand cause thee to offend, cut it off; it is well for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire." According to this tranaU- tion, the sense conveyed by verses 43, 4.5, and 47> is such as follows; To avoid offence by cutting off a hand, or a foot, or plucking out an eye, that is, at the cost of much pain and self-sacrifice to aecnre an entrance into eternal life, is, positively, well, on acconnt of the sor*

Eassing value of life; and, comparatively, it is better to do this than, aving two hands, two feet, two eyes^ that b, not having made any self-sacrifice, to be compelled on that account to undergo the much sorer punishment of the unquenchable fire of Gehenna. This inter- pretation, however, seems to imply that the end or effect of the pain and punishment is in both cases the same. This point may admit of being cleared up by the subsequent reasoning.

Verse 44. "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire ia not quenched," which is quoted from Isaiah hvi. 24, is plainly added aa an explanatory amplification of what immediately precedes. There are no corresponding words in the parallel passage of St. Matthew (xviii. 8. 9).

1863.] Notes an Mark ix. 43—60. 461

In order to arrive at the true sense of thb verse, it will be proper to consider the two clauses separately. Now with respect to the first clause, we may at once determine by the application of the second of the al>oTe-mentioned principles, that it must be taken in an allegorical signification. For the worm (ffKuXtfO here spoken of is literally that which feeds on dead bodies, of which it would be contrary to fact to say that it does not die. What then is the allegorical meaning ? Those who say that it means '* extreme misery," should be careful to tell us the steps of the induction by which they reach this conclusion. The feeble worm which feeds on mortal remains presents to our sight nothing capable of causing pain or misery. This text has given occasion for descriptions (such as those in Book i. of Pollok*s Course of Time) which are mere creations of the imagination, having no basis in our outward perceptions to rest upon. The few and simple words of Scripture appear, on the contrary, to refer to a fact of common observa- tion for the purpose of indicating, by a distinct and visible emblem, that there is a livmg principle which destroys mortality, and which, for that very reason, does not die. If we be guided solely by the use of our senses — and apart from experience and observation of the external world there is no foundation of scriptural science — this is all that can be gathered respecting the allegorical meaning of the first clause. I have given in the Clerical Journal of June 5, 1862 (p. 526), an expla- nation of this clause for the most part the same as the foregoing; but I did not there enter upon the explanation of the other, nor indicate the connexion and mutual relation between the two. These questions I proceed to consider now.

The second clause, like the first, has reference to means by which mortal remains are, or may be, destroyed, it being the practice in all nations and ages to bury, or to burn, dead bodies. But the fire which is used for this purpose is such as may be quenched. The fire h^re spoken of is especially called in verse 43, rh irvp to dtrpetnov, " the unquenchable fire." Here I cannot forbear remarking that the transla- tion of these words in the Authorized Version, " the fire that never shall be quenched," is not sufficiently close to the original, and does not convey exactly the same sense. For the distinctive epithet aapetnov, which is inapplicable to natural fire, on that very account, according to the principle before cited, indicates that an allegorical meaning is here intended. Now the allegorical meaning of the destruction of dead bodies by fire may be widely different from that of their being consumed by worms, inasmuch as natural fire not only consumes and destroys, but is also capable of causing pain, and can purify and transform. It will, therefore, be proper to enquire, next, what is the exact allegorical sense of the assertion in verse 44, " the fire is not quenched " (to tO^

ov apivmnai).

First, it may be remarked that that assertion is to be interpreted by the epithet iaPeo-rov going before, so as to signify that the fire is not quendied because, from its essential quality, it is unquenchable. In order to learn how, or why, the fire here signified has this quality, it will be necessary to ascertain previously what is the allegorical meaning

gg2

452 Correspondence. [Jnlyt

generally of *' fire '* in Scripture. It m\\, I think, be made sufficiently clear by the following quotations that fire symbolizes the effect of law, and especially the ^ect of the operation of law in the judgment. In Deut. xzxiii. 2, at the commencement of the blessing of the children of Israel by Moses before his death, these words occur: *'The Lord came from Sinai, . . . from his right hand went a fiery law for them." The Hebrew is, " a fire of law.'' Mention is made in Heb. x. 27 of " a certain fearful looking for of judgment and indignation of fire that will destroy the adversaries" (irvpo^ ^ij\o9 kaOUiv fUXKoirro9^ jc.t.X.). In the second apocryphal book of Esdras (xiii. 38) it is expressly said that " the law is like unto fire." And again (xvi. 53), " God shall bum coals of fire upon the head of him that saith before the Lord God and his glory, I have not sinned." Judgment according to the law given from <*the mount that burnt with fire" (Heb. xii. 18), brings " tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil " (Rom. ii. 9). This <<fire of law" to ^hich in St. Mark the epithet uap€<nov is applied, in the parallel passage of St. Matthew is called TO irvp TO aiwvtov. In the letter already referred to, it was argued that the term aiwvtou applied to a word designating an object of common observation or experience, indicates the perpetuity, as to operation or effect, of that which the natural object symbolizes. In fact, the holy law of God cannot but be eternal in its operation and effect.

But while this interpretation is given to the second clause, r^ard must still be had to the meaning of the first. The Scriptures place the two in connexion, and we ought not to separate them. But according to the foregoing argument, the first clause simply signifies that mor- tality (symbolized by dead bodies) is destroyed by a principle of life; or, as St. Paul writes, quoting from Isaiah xxv. 8, *' Death is swallowed up in victory." With this agree the words in Hosea (xiii. 14): **0 death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction." Hence, by taking the two clauses in conjunction, it must be concluded from this reasoning that the end is immortality, and that the means by which the end is brought about is the operation of the fire of law in judgment. This doctrine agrees with that which I deduced from the passage commented upon in my former letter, as compared with the teaching in 1 Cor. iii. 11 — 15. Moreover the very same doctrine ap- pears to be taught by our Lord in verses 49 and 50 of the passage at present under consideration, as I shall now endeavour to shew.

Those verses are intimately connected, as is proved by the partide 7a^, with the words, " where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," and by consequence with the whole of the passage in verses 43 — 48. They seem, in fact, to be added for the express purpose of explaining the previous doctrine. The first part of verse 49, ** For ^very one shall be salted with fire," should be compared with the second

Eart, " and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt," the two clauses eing clearly related to each other analogically. *' Every sacrifice" answers to " every one," in order to shew that every one that is salted with fire suffers pain and death as the slain animal of a sacrifice, and '' salt" answers to ''fire," to shew that the effect of the fire is to make

1863.] Sinaitic Inscriptions, 453

the sacrifice pood. The next words, '' salt is good,*' distinctly intimate that that Quality of salt is signified; and those which follow, "if the salt be without saltness, with what shall ye season it V indicate that there is no other way to moral perfection than the being *' salted with fire." Our Lord concludes the explanation with saying, " Have salt in yoarselves, and peace one with another," which, interpreted by the ex- planation of what goes before, is an exhortation to aim at moral excel- lence by the sacrifice of self and by kindness towards others.

The agreement of the above views with those I deduced from Rom. iii. 3 — 9, will, I think, be obrious. In fact, the important lesson which both these portions of Scripture appear to teach is, that the holy law of God, by which all men will be judged, is at the same time the sole principle of immortality, and that being eventually by the power of God " written in their hearts," it becomes, by a new covenant, " the power of an endless life."

Cambridge, June 10, 1863. J. Challis.

SINAITIC INSCRIPTIONS.

Will, you, or some of your correspondents, kindly favour me with the titles and dates of the best books for information respecting the inscrip- tions in Wady Mokatteb, and elsewhere in the Sinaitic peninsula? Any information from those who have seen and examined the inscriptions would be peculiarly acceptable. The works of Rev. C. Forster, I, of course, know, but there is surely something more recent, and on difierent principles of interpretation. C. H.

ETHIOPIC LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.

I WISH to meet with reference to the best aids to the knowledge of the Ethiopic language and literature. S. T.

( 454 ) [July,

SrOTICES OF BOOKS.

The Negeb, or " South Chuntry " of Scripture. By the Rev. Edward Wilton, M.A. With a Map. London and Cambridge: Mac- millan and Co.

In these days of research, any sober and scholarlike investigation into questions of Biblical topography or geography is sure to attract atten- tion. For, although much has been done of late years to elucidate and clear up difficulties, much still remains to be determined. We are, therefore, much obliged to Mr. Wilton for his learned and interesting monograph, in which he has endeavoured, by practical enquiry, to throw light upon an undoubtedly vexed question. The first part of the book treats of the geography of the ^^ South country" ; the second dis- cusses its special characteristics—chiefly physical and zoological ; and the third is an elaborate attempt to identify the exact sites of the different cities of the '' South country" enumerated in Joshua xv. 21 — 32. The author has introduced illustrations of Scripture whenever he has found it possible, and he reminds us that his great object is to promote a more intelligent study of the Bible, and an increased appre- ciation of its wonderful literary resources. If success attends this endeavour, Mr. Wilton proposes to deal with the other portions of the Holy Land in the same manner, so as to present a critical and exhaus- tive treatise on the physical and historical geography of Palestine. We can only say that, in the interests of Biblical science, we hope he will be encouraged to prosecute his plan, and to give us all he wishes to give us. In this volume, he has undertaken a difficult task, but there is in it so much to commend, that we can assure our readers they will be gratified and instructed by its perusal.

As for the word Negeb, which appears in the title, it is taken to mean originally drt/^ and hence generally the South or South country. When not otherwise defined, it is a curious question what is meant by the Negeb. Dr. Kitto thought it referred to the uplands of Judah, and a writer in this Journal (April, 1860) takes it to comprehend "the Sinaitic peninsula, and the whole country spreading northwards to the Mediterranean and the Canaanite border." The application of the word is generally considered uncertain and irregular, but Mr. Wilton tries to shew that it specially describes the country extending from the mountains and lowlands of Judah on the north, to the mountains of Azazimeh on the south, and from the Dead Sea and southern Ghor on the east, to the Mediterranean on the west. But, besides this, it had extensions to the north-east and to the south-west. For the better understanding of these conclusions, a good map is introduced. We would not at all be understood to endorse every conclusion and criticism of the volume, but we wish to say that it is a fair example of the oaes to which learning may be put, and that it throws a new light upon not

1868.] Notices of Books. 455

a few passages of Holy Scripture. We like the tone and spirit, as well as tbe plan and aim of the book ; for, while much use has been made of other authorities, they are criticised in a frank and proper manner whenever necessary, and where passages of Scripture fall for discussion, they are dealt with as the sacred volume ought to be dealt with. If ingenuity and learning, combined with sobriety, recommend an author, Mr. Wilton is recommended. We are sorry Uiat the space now at our disposal prevents us from fully discussing the merits of this work, but we think it likely that we may return to it again. In the meantime, we thank Mr. Wilton for this contribution to our stores, and give an extract, to shew his style and manner. We may also observe that Mr. Wilton has reprinted, in his volume, an article contributed to this Journal, on '* Gerar and its Philistine inhabitants," [J, 8. L.j July, 1860.) Joshua xv. 21 — 32, contains a list of cities in the Negeb, belonging to Judah. The names and localities of all the cities are discussed by Mr. Wilton, in Part III., as already intimated, and from this portion, pp. 137 — 141, we quote the following passage : —

" Sazar-Shual.'*^— The seventeenth city is mentioned four times. In two of these passages, it stands between Moladab and Beershebn, which might almost dispose us to look for it in the immediate vicinity of our last city. But as, in the two remaining instances, it comes between Moladah and Baalah (S.W. of €raza), our range is extended, and all we can predicate of it is, that it lays some- where between Moladah and the Mediterranean Sea. We need, therefore, some additional criteria to enable us to decide its position. Three such are afforded us, which we shall do well to consider.

" 1. The word itself implies that the animal indicated by the term Shual, was found there in such numbers as to give its name to the locality. What, then, was this animal, described in various parts of Scripture as gregarious in its habits, preying on dead bodies, inhabiting ruins and dry places, and of which there were at least two species, a larger and a smaller, the latter more especially frequenting vineyards, where they committed great depredations ? We cannot douDt that the Jackal fcanis aurensj is the animal principally referred to, for it alone fulfils the several conditions above indicated, while its very name, both in Eastern and Western languages, is radically connected with the Hebrew Shual. But that the fox fcanis mJmeaJ is included under this general term, is evident from Cant. ii. 16, where Solomon, with accurate knowledge of natural history, which is ascribed to him, speaks of it as * the UtUe shual that spoils the vines.' It is, in fact, shorter in the legs, and otherwise smaller than the jackal, and is only found occasionally in Palestine, whereas the jackal is met with in great numbers throughout the country. There were some spots, however, where they abounded to such a degree as to give them their special designation. Among these, is the city now under consideration, Hazar-Shual, Uhe enclosure or dwelling-place of the Shual.'

" Our next enquiry is — Do modem travellers furnish evidence of the abun- dance of the jackal at any spot within the limits above specified, viz., between Moladah and the sea near Gaza ?

*' Dr. Robinson happened to fall in with but two of these animals during the whole of his travels, and one of them, singularly enough, was seen by him near Milh (Moladah). On the other hand, when Dr. Keith stood on the desolate site of the ancient Gaza, and saw that the predicted * baldness ' had indeed ' come upon it,' the only living object within view was * a jackal » freely coursing over its bare surface. While our attention is thus again divided between the two extre- mities of our range of choice, the testimony of a distinguished naturalist comes

" We omit the notes and references.

456 Notices of Books. [July,

in to pnt an end to oar nnoertaintv. * Jackals (writes Hasflelginst) amfawnd m great numbers about Oaza; and, from tbeir gregarious nature, it is much more probable tbat Samson sbould bave caugbt tbree bnndred of them^ tban of the solitary quadruped, tbe fox.' As tbe latter, however, was included under the generic term 8hual, it is interesting to notice that of the three occasions on which foxes were seen bj the Scottish deputation throughout Palestine, one was while they were travelling in the desert S. W. of Gaza.

*t All that now remains is to discover a site near Graza, on the south side (for the Negeb did not extend beyond Wady Shertah), whose name shall suggest an affinity with Hazar-Shual. This, we are at no loss to do. The Scottish deputa- tion, * about half an hour N.E. of Khanounes,' (Khan Yiinas) came to * a small village cidled BenUhaUj built apparently of mud bricks, but embosomed in trees^ among which a solitary palm raised its head. The name of the town is taken from 3ie Arabic name of one of the constellations. It stands upon the summit of a rising ground, and the channel of a stream, which at one time had watered its gardens, but is now dry (June 2), can be plainly traced.' The term Beid (Sons) is now as frequent a prefix as Hazar used to be. And that JShaU may well stand for Shual, is proved by the Masoretic pronunciation of the ' land of Shualim,' represented in the authorized version by Shaiim.

" The analogy is complete, when it is added that the * land of Shaiim,' or Shual, * norUi of Jerusalem, is now called the district of jSeni-S61im.' We have every reason, therefore, to regard the village of Benishail as the modem repre- sentative of Hazar-Shual."

The Spirit of the Bible ; oTj The nature and value of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures discriminated^ in an analysis of their several Books. By . Edward Higqinson. Two Vols. Second Edition, revised. London : E. Whitfield.

The author of this work tells us that he aims to shew the spirit in which the Scriptures require to be read and interpreted, received and defended. He wishes to give utterance to a thoroughly free-minded and rational belief in them as the records of Divine revehition. ** Be- tween the perplexing letter-worship of too many Scripturists, and the sweeping rationalism which presumes to deny the possibility of a supernatural revelation/' he says, " I desire to indicate the ground on which rational Christianity may firmly take its stand, implying the divine origin of Judaism.'^ In the preface to this edition, he says, *' I feel somewhat strongly, that those who have newly popularized Biblical subjects, have not always distinguished so carefully as was desirable between the false claims which they reject as incumbrances to Biblical belief, and the real claims which the Bible cannot part with, if it is to remain a Bible to us.'' We ought, perhaps, to quote another sentence to shew the author's ground, and his opinion of the effect of his former edition : '* My book has probably found its readers thus far as was natural, chiefiy among Unitarians and their connexions ; while I rejoice also to know that it has been the means of clearing up conventional difiiculties in many sceptical minds." The first five chapters are preli- minary, and will be quite enough to shew that the freedom which be owns characterizes his treatment is the freedom of a school with which we cannot be expected to agree. People accustomed to old-&8hioned modes of thinking and acting in regard to the Bible, will certainly and often be startled by what Uiey read here. They will feel, and we

1863.] Notices of Books. 457

sympathize with them thus far, that there is a danger in sach teaching as that of Mr. Higginson, which is none the less real because he is staid, sober, and earnest in his utterances. He has, we believe, tried to write, and he thinks he has written impartially, but to us it is very apparent that, like many others, he has been under a decided doctrinal bias. There is in the work unquestionably much valuable material, and many observations which judicious readers may profit by ; but when we remember that judicious readers are not so numerous after all, our commendation of the volumes must be limited. Those who hare much to do with the theological and critical controversies of the day may and must find Mr. Higginson's volumes useful, even when they differ widely, as we do, from much that he has written.

The Inspiration of the Book of Daniel and other portions of Holy Scripture : with a Correction of Profane and an Adjustment of Sacred Chronology, By W. R. A. Botle, of Lincoln's Inn, Bar-^ rister. London: Rivingtons. 1863.

We had hoped to devote some of our space in this number to a review of Mr. Boyle's work, but we have found the subject one requiring very careful handling, and this the pressure of other claims has not allowed. At present then we only cordially invite the attention of our readers to a volume in which we have felt very deeply interested, and which will we doubt not be very generally received with favour. It is divided into several books, and although its contents generally cluster round the book of Daniel, yet they touch upon many other matters of great importance. As some compensation for unavoidable delay we copy out at length a somev^hat brief and miscellaneous chapter, the tenth of the first book, in which the author treats of " Daniel's acquaintance with contemporary History, Manners, and Customs." Our reason for quo- ting this particular chapter is partly its brevity, and partly the fact that it is not very closely interwoven with the rest It may serve to suggest the qualifications which Mr. Boyle brings to his task.

** Among the internal proofs of the authentioity of the book of Daniel* none are more striking than the exact knowledge which it displays of the history and manners of the times, when it professes to have been writteui and the general cast of the entire work. These evidences have been admirably brought out by Herder, Miinter, Hengstenberg, and others of the orthodox German school. Its broader historical features are, if possible, surpassed in importance by niceties of expression, and peculiar touches of history, the delicacy of which is beyond the power of an imitator, and exhibits the unerring hand of a master.

" Mmtion of the Medes and Fersiam. — ^Thus Daniel, both under Bekhauar and Darius, speaks of the Medes and Fernanai where, contrary to the arrange- ment adopted in 1 MaocaA)ees xiv. 2, and to be generally met with in later writers, when speaking of more recent times, the Medes are placed first. Now, this is iu the strictest accordance with history, Media being the leading kingdom until the reign of Cyrus, in the course of whose rei^ the change occurred, though it probably did so later in Babylonia, or in ooi\)unction with Cjtub, who was him* self a Mede. The order, therefore, of naming the two countries must have been reversed in the narrow interval which separated Daniel firom Esther. It is, however, just such a nicety as would be likely to be unheeded, and was in fkct not attended to, nor probably noticed, even by accurate writers.

458 .Notices of Books. [July,

** The book of Esther is an exception, for although both orders of arrange- ment are adopted, yet they are in either case equally appropriate. In aUuaion to oocurrenoes subsequent to the time of Daniel, the people are spoken of as the Persians and Modes, where the Persians are put first, while, with reference to the historical records of the two countries, the original order is preserved ; the OTenls referred to being said to be ' written in the book of the ohronioles of Media and Persia.' This strict attention to the relative priority of these kingdoms, either in point of antiquity or of eminence, is not adhered to by subsequent writers. Thus in the book of Esdras no rule is observed, but either form is used indif- ferently, shewing that the writer had met with both, but was unacquainted with the reason why they had thus been variously employed.

'* Josephus too, speaking of times anterior to this transposition of names as well as those of later date, makes no distinction between them, but in both equally places Persia in the van. Thus, he says, that Shalmaneeer king of Assyria, who reigned a century and more before the time of Daniel, brought the Cutheans out of Persia and Medea, and planted them in Samaria ; while in the long subsequent reign of the Persian Darius the son of Hystaspes, he observes the same order, in mentioning * the toparchs of Persia and Media.' Just pre- viously he uses the expression, 'the rulers of the Modes and princes of the Persians ;* but this has no apparent reference to the relative eminence or prepon- derance of the two countries, if indeed, Arom the omission of the articles before the word ' princes,' the same individuals are not referred to under botii tities. If not, then since Media was a province, governed under the king, its rulers or viceroy may have been, during office, of higher authority than me princes of Persia, whose rank may have been more of birth than of station. The distinc- tion, however, was even greater than that which arises out of the mere transposi- tion just noticed, since the two people were v^ generally mingled under a common appellation, the one being merged or lost in the name of the other ; with this difference, that while before the age of Danid they most frequently went by the general name of Modes, they afterwards passed under the common designation of Persians. This may be traced in most writers of history, and an instaiMe of it occurs even in Joeephus, when referring to them apparently as nations ooming in succession, though, as we have seen, he does not usually attend to this oider. Speekinff of those who earliest became known to the Greeks, he savs* ' The Modes also and the Persians, when they were lords of Asia, became well known to them ; and this was especially true of tiie Persians, who led their armies as fur as the other continent,' ». «., Europe. But with the many historical errors to be found in the books of the Maccabees, it would be a highly improbable supposi- tion that a Jew of Palestine of their age, attempting to pass off his writangs as that of the prophet Daniel, should have noted such an historical nicety as that involved in the order of Media and Persia^ in comparison with that of Persia and Media^ separated as the use of these expressions was by so short an interval of time. Daniel lived onlv just before the reflux of that tide which, at the date of the events narrated in the book of Esther, had completely set in, and which con- tinuing thence forward to flow in the same direction, gradually submerged the sister country of Medea in the common designation of Persia.

'* ImpotUum of Names, — ^The imposition of other names which took place in the case of DaniM and his companions, appears to have been a practice with tiie Babylonians, as well as with the kindred nation of the Egyptians, both pecmle being derived from an AssyrUn source. Joseph had given to bom by Pharaoh tne name of Zapnath-paaneah, ngnif^ng a revealer of secrets. So too, Nebuchad- nesar, when he carried away captive Jehoiachin, king of Judi^, and rn^A^ Mattuniah, his &ther's brother, king in his stead, changed his name to Zedekiah. It was on this very occasion, that the monarch is represented to have given Babylonian names to the royal youths, Daniel, Hananiidi, Michael, and Aaaiiah. It 18 but the simple fcot, however, which is mentioned, and thus the book of Mniel exhibits the same characteristic mark as the rest of the saoied volume, — thftt of simple narrative, without any attempt at colouring or exphmation.

CapUal iVmif AiMii«#._The authcnr's intimate aoquaintauce with Babylonian

1868.] Notices of Books. 459

mannen and habits is another remarkable feature in the book of Daniel ; ttad the artless and unobtrusive form in which this preeente itself is equally striking. The capital panishments which he mentions are in unison with the cruel character of the Babylonians, and are shewn by other testimony to have been practised among this people. The threat of Nebuohadneiar to the Chaldean astrologers was, tiiat they should be ' cut to pieces ;' and during his reign a still more feamd infliction was that of being burnt alive, or cast into a heated oven or furnace of fire. Jeremiah, with reference to the very same monarch, mentions the latter as a mode of punishing with death practised in Babylonia. David also apparently makes allusion to it, as a figure to express the fierceness of God's anger. When, however, the Babylonian empire was overthrown, a very different kind of capital punishment is related by Daniel to have prevailed among the Medes and Persians, the offender being thrown, not into a fiery oven which would have been opposed to tho Zend or Zoroastrian system of reUgion, but into a den of lions. This was a punishment peculiar to the Persians, until some centuries later, when the barbarities of both the emperors were adopted bv the Eoman people. In each of these instances, therefore, the writer displays all the accuracy of a optemporary living at the time of the events which he relates. Of the two Babylonian punish- ments referred to, he describes the latter so fully and exactly, that Bertholdt maintains, that we must suppose he had himself seen such an oven, and been present at an execution, in saying this, he at the same time allows that the author must have lived under the reign of the Chaldeans; since under the Persians, according to their system of r^igion, their mode of punishment could not continue. The appropriateness of the several punishments thus referred to, with the character and customs of the various people by whom they were inflicted, is to be traced throughout the sacred volume. In Judsea the means of death spoken of are either the sword, or else stoning with stones. In Gibeon, and apparently other countries in and about Canaan, one kind of death was that of hanging upon trees. In Babylonia the axe wielded so as to hew the offender in pieces, or the fiery oven, are the instruments of destruction represented as employed. In Persia the modes of death are changed to hanging upon a gibbet or being shut in with wild beasts. In the Boman territories the punishments are described to be those of impaling or nailing to a cross, and by combats with wild beasts on the public arena.

" Turn to which page we may, each separate incident or allusion is found to be in keeping with the external circumstances of the period, as well as in perfect harmony with other portions of Scripture.

'* Cugtonm of the BabjfUmicMs. — Various subordinate circumstances are more or less camially noticed in the book of Daniel, which shew that the writer was ISuniliar vrith the habits of the people, and the nature of the country of which he speaks, and to point to the lumd of a cotemponury. Thus the statement of Daniel, that he and his companions were by command of the king to be fed from the royal table, accords with the customs of the Babylonians. Among the Persians, who adopted many of the habits of the Babylonians whom they had conquered, the number thus maintained at the royal expense amounted at one time to the enormous number of fifteen thousand persons.

" Deseriptian of i>rM».'— Again, the dress of Idol's companions corresponds with the description given by Herodotus, who says that their costumes consist of a linen tunic reaching to the feet, then another tunic composed of wool, over which ¥ras worn a snuiU cloak or mantle. This threefold dothing is found de- picted on Babylonian cylinders, and is exactly that which Daniel describes as their coaU or (marginal reading) mantles, their hosen or woollen tunics, and their (under) garmewts or linen tunics.

'* Muiieal Inetruments. — ^From the number of musical instruments which are mentioned in connexion witii the dedication of the golden image, it is evident that music was a flavourite amusement with the Babylonians. Accordingly this appears to have been the case from Isaiah xiv. 11, and from a heathen writer, Curtius, V. 3.

" Decay of the Babyloman Suildinffe,— The following is a remarkable instance

460 Notices of Books. [ J^7>

of the author's aoquaintanoe with the nature of the country. Professor Heng-* stenberg, to whom I am indebted for the last three observations, thus forcibly states it. In chap. ii. 5, the king threatens the wise men, that on their failing to satisfy his requirements, their houses shall be turned into dunff-heaps, Bertholdt himself allows that the most accurate acquaintance is here shewn with the mode of building practised in Babylon, and that the piece must therefore have been written in Babylonia. The houses in Babylon were built of earth, burnt or simply dried in the sun. * When a building is totally demolished or oonverted into a confused heap of rubbish, the entire mass of earth in rainy weather is gradually decomposed, and the place of such a house becomes like a dung-hill.'

** The prophet Jeremiah, in predicting the destruction of this ^eat city, con- tents himself with saying that Bab3ion shall become heaps. ' He does not so distinctly as Daniel refer to this process of decomposition, which reduces the once separate materials into one undistinguishable mass/ "

The Last Times, and the Oreat Consummation, An earnest discussion of momentous themes. By Joseph A. Seisb. Bevised and en- larged Edition. Philadelphia and London : Wertheim and Co»

Dr. Seiss believes that his book is of some importance, and hence he has it published simultaneously in England, Canada, and the United States. The first three hundred and ten pages are occupied with twelve discourses ; these are followed by about fifty pages of notes and addi- tions, and these again by some seventy pages of " authorities, books, and references pn the subjects treated in (he volume." The object of the volume is the elaboration and defence of a chiliastic theory. The author thinks Louis Napoleon is most likely the personal Antichrist.

The T^es of Genesis briefly considered, as revealing the development qf Human Nature, By Andrew Jukes. Second Edition. Lon- don: Longmans.

We so thoroughly dissent from the principles upon which Mr. Jukes proceeds, and yet so heartily concur in some of his conclusions, that we must refrain from a critique of his book. His theology will bear the test of orthodoxy in most points, but his criticism partakes largely of what we should call the mystical and allegorizing spirit, which finds a type where we can only see a parallel or a remote analogy.

The Works of John Rowe, M,A. Vol. V. Containing the Treatises on divine Prescience and the Trinity ; Letter concerning StUUng- fleet* s Sermon, Three Discourses on Public Occasions, etc, London : Religious Tract Society.

This edition of the works of Howe is, we understand, edited by Mr. Henry Rogers, whose qualifications for the office have been long evidenced by his ably written life of this eminent writer. John Howe was one of the master-minds of his time, and it is not only in his Living Temple that he distinguished himself. Whether in his contro- versial, his practical, or his more didatic pieces, we everywhere meet in him with the gentleman, the philosopher, and the Christian. The present edition of his works is very complete and exact, and in a size

1868.] Notices of Books. 461

very convenient for use. We may observe, that althongh Jobn Howe's ecclesiastical views took him into the ranks of nonconformity, and althongh he was led to write polemical treatises of different kinds, he is one of those authors whose earnest zeal^ enlightened fiaith, and nobility of mind, command the respect of all generous minds.

The Works of Thomas Ooodwin, D.D. With General Preface by John C. Miller, D.D., and Memoir by Robert Halley, D.D. Vol. VI. Containing " The work of the Holy Ohost in our Salvation^" Edinburgh : James Nichol.

Lovers of what is called the " old theology," will be thankful to Mr. Nichol for the very cheap edition of Dr. Goodwin's works, to which we have before invited attention, and which, as well for its value as for its cheapness and portability, we again recommend. The treatise con- tained in this volume is very full and elaborate, and one which goes more deeply and thoroughly into its subject than can be expected of authors who write in these stirring times of ours.

The Pentateuchj and its relation to the Jewish and Christian Dispensa' Hon. By Andrews Norton. Edited by John James Tatler, B.A., Member of the Historico-Theological Society of Leipsic, and Principal of Manchester New College, London. London : Long- man, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green. 1863.

This may be called a work on the Colenso side of the controversy about the Pentateuch. Mr. Tayler says what all authors and editors say, whatever their subject and whatever their views, — that he thinks the cause of religious truth might be served by the publication. This is probably right, for most books provoke some enquiry and discussion, and it really seems as if the human race were not destined to unanimity until every comer in the universe of truth has been contested. Mr. Norton was an able writer, and his work on the Genuineness of the Oospels is well known to critics. From that work the present is reprinted, and edited with a few words of his own by Mr. J. James Tayler. All parties can claim a hearing, and, therefore, we hope Mr. Norton will be heard. We believe his critical position altogether wrong, but, as a writer, he commands our respect.

The Pentateuch and Writings of Moses defended against the (Micks of Dr. Colenso. By A Layman. London : James Nisbet and Co. 1863.

The author, who appears to be Mr. J. H. Mann, writes sensibly ; and his book may be profitably added to the long list of publications con* nected with the Colenso controversy, as a useful one. We are always glad to meet with intelligent laymen, who are able and willing to give good reasons for their faith.

462 Notices of Booh. [ J«ly#

The Divine Human in the Scriptures. By Tatler Lewis. London : James Nisbet and Co. 1863.

A very snitable book for young men, especially snch as are of a tbonghtfol tnm of mind. We hope it will find many readers, as it is everywhere sober, and is very well written. Even when the author seems to us a little fanciful, he is none the less sober, and while we feel that we must differ from him, we do so without losing our respeeL The tone of the book Is very much apologetic, and its tendency is to increase reverence and esteem for the Bible as a divine revelation : God's thoughts in man's words; Divine ideas conveyed through a human medium.

The Life of Moses j in a course of Village Lectures, With a Pre&oe critical of Bishop Colenso's work on the Pentateuch. By the Rev. T. Thornton, M. A. London : Rivingtons. 1863.

Mr. Thornton necessarily addresses himself ad populum in his man- ner, as well as in fact. His little volume comprises a prefieuie very earnestly written, and calculated to impress as well as to inform the readers, whom he evidently contemplates. The lectures were delivered on Wednesday evenings in Lent, and are, therefore, imbued with a thoroughly religious spirit. We have been much pleased with the tone and manner of the author, and we hope that such clergymen as feel the need of a manual for circulation among their flocks, will not overlook this ; for, although neither scholastic nor anatomical in its style, it is a hearty book, and hearty books are wanted as much as head books. Argue, criticize, and write as we may, religious controversies like those here treated will never be settled by pure reason. The criticism of faith, a loyal, true, and living faith, is wanted as much as the criti- cism of the intellect. We want both, and we must have both.

Science EluddeUioe qf Scripture, and not Antagonistic to it Being a series of Essays by John Radford Young, formerly Professor of Mathematics in Bdfast College, Author of An Elementary Course of MathematicSj eic,j etc. London : Lockwood and Co. 1863.

We beUeve Mr. Young well able to write a good book ; and, without saying he could not improve the one before us, we may say that it is calculated to be very usefuL Just now, it is a fiivourite notion with some that Science and Scripture are irreconcilable, and we believe there are tnany £stcts which seem to favour the opinion. Take, for instance, geology. It is assumed by science, that certain formations were formed in a particular way, and many ages before the Bible allows the existence of man : a human jaw-bone is dug up in these formations, and it is inferred at once that the Bible is in error. Absurdity of absurdities t Do we know the true history of every bed of day, sand, gravel, detritus, and so forth ? Do we know very much that we pass over or admit without questioning? There are expressions in the

1863.] Notices of Boqks. 468

Bible itself which we shall nerer Mly understand. So then, till we know more, let us believe more and say less. He was not fax wrong who said, our whole philosophy was summed up in our great curiosity and our weak eyesight.

AihaUe et Esther de Racine^ avec un Commentaire BibUque. Par le Pasteur Athanase Coquerel. Paris: Cherbuliez.

The work before us will, perhaps, be considered somewhat of a novelty, but when it is remembered that in the latter years of his life Racine was a devout student of Scripture and a truly religious man, the task of M. Coquerel will not be deemed a superfluous one. He has prefixed to each play an excellent introduction, and added many valuable notes to the text. The introductions contain a considerable amount of useful information and criticism, and the editor is right in hoping that this volume will be accepted as a supplement to the existing editions of Racine. The notes, are very carefully compiled, with the view of indicating all the very numerous references to Scripture contained in the two plays, and also with the intention of illustrating and explaining the more important texts. We sometimes see reason to differ fVom him in the views he advocates, but we may, nevertheless, strongly recom- mend the book to the attention of those who would not only read but understand these admirable productions. Students of Biblicid criticism will find, in the introduction to Esther, a discussion of several weighty questions connected with the book of the same name.

Leonardi HuUerij Compendium Loeorum Tkeologicorum^ Addita sutU Excerpta ex Jo, WoUebti et Ben. Pieteti compendiis. Prssfatus est Dr. A. TwESTEir. Editio Secunda. Berolini : Wil. Hertz.

This compendium gives, under thirty-four heads, and in a catechetical form, the principal doctrines of the old continental theology, and the Scripture reasons for them. In our day, what are called '^ conunon- places " are not much needed, but it is very certain that^ with all theii* critical defects, the common-place books and oompendiums of the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries rendered immense service. Some of them might be found useful even now.

First Leaves of the Psalter ; or the first fifty Psalms of David metri- cally rendered. By Richard Phayme, M.A., Rector of East and West Raynham, Norfolk. Norwich : H. W. Stacy. London : W. H. Dalton. 1863.

This promises to be a better version of the Psalms than many which we have seen, and we hope the author will be able to complete his undertaking.

464 Notices of Books. U^y,

The Incredibilities of Part IL of the Bishop ofNatciCs Work upon the Pentateuch, A Lay protest, by John Collyeb Eniobt. Lon* don : Samuel Bagster and Sons,

Amid the multitude of publications which have reached us adverse to the criticisms of Dr. Colenso, we have no hesitation in calling attention to this, as a very intelligent and commendable performance.

The Unpreached Oospel; an Embedded Truth. London: Simpldn, Marshall and Co.

A very thoughtful pamphlet, by a writer of an original turn of mind. Many considerations are advanced, well worthy of attention in these times. If the reader does not always agree with the author, he will get something to think about.

Homilies and Communion Discourses, By the Rev. James Smith, A.M., Assistant minister, Newhills. Edinburgh : Adam and Charles Black. 1863.

These Homilies and Communion Discourses are plain, earnest, prac- tical, and evangelical, and we have pleasure in commending them to the Christian reader, to whom their perusal, in hours of quiet leborOy will be for edification.

1. The BibUcal Oyclop(zdia^ or Dictionary of Eastern Antiquities^

Geography^ etc. Edited by John Eadib, D.D., LL.D. With Maps and Illustrations. Re-issue. Part I. Wesley.

2. CasseWs lUustraied Bible Dictionary. Parts I., II., III. Cassell,

Petter, and Galpin.

3. The Imperial Bible Dictionary^ Historical^ Biographical^ Oeogra-- phicalj and Doctrinal, etc. Edited by Patrick Faikbairn, D.D.. Part I. Blackie and Son.

4. A Cyclopcsdia of BibUcal Literature. Originally edited by John

KiTTO, D.D. Third Edition, greatly enlarged and improved.

Edited by W. L. Alexander, D.D. A. and C. Black. b. A Dictionary of the Bible, comprising its Antiquities, Bio^aphy^

Oeography, and Natural History. Edited by William SmitH|

LL.D. John Murray. 6. Broum's Dictionary of the Holy Bible. Corrected and improved,

SBev. Jas. Smith, A.M. ; with illustrative notes, by Rev. Cook, D.D., LL.D. Blackie and Son.

These works seem to indicate an active demand for dictionaries of the Bible, and we wish them all success, so far as they merit it. It would be an invidious task to compare them, as they mostly appeal to different classes of readers. At the same time, they are of different degrees of merit, and may be judged on different grounds. No. 1 is popular and plain, as weU as useful ; but No. 2 on the list promises to be a much better book. No. 3 begins well, and under good auspices. Nos. 4 and 5 are already well known and valued ; and No. 6 is an old standard,

1863.] Notice of Books. 465

but we fear it cannot be transformed into what we should call a gooll book. We intend to return to this question of the present extraor- dinary multiplication of Bible dictionaries.

Discussions on Church Principles : Popish, ErasHan, and Presbyterian, By William Cunningham, D.D., Principal and Professor of Church History, New College, Edinburgh. Edited by his literary Execu- tors. Edinburgh : T. and T. Clark. London : Hamilton, Adams and Co. Dublin : John Robertson and Co. 1863.

This is the fourth, and, ^e believe, concluding Tolume of the posthu- mous works of the late Dr. Cunningham. Like the former volumes, it has been edited by his literary executors, who have made such changes (few, apparently, and immaterial) as seemed to them desirable before publication. This volume is as strongly marked as its predeces- sors by the peculiar excellencies of its lamented author. It indicates, on every page, gre^t intellectual vigour, and varied, well digested, and powerfully applied learning. Some of the "discussions" are very valuable, and possessed of enduring interest. We may refer particu- larly to the papers on "The liberties of the Gallican Church," in which a very interesting and instructive account is given of the struggles of the French Church against Ultramontane views and usur- pations ; and the papers on " The Temporal Sovereignty " and " The Temporal Supremacy of the Pope." Most of the other chapters will be chiefly interesting to Scotchmen and Presbyterians. They bear on the questions of ecclesiastical principle and polity involved in the great conflict which agitated the Scottish Church before the Disruption of 1843. We cannot help regretting that so much of Dr. Cunningham's strength was expended on these somewhat narrow and uninviting con- troversies ; and we fear that, irom their generally restricted interest, his many able papers on such topics will not meet with that large amount of attention which their learning and earnestness deserve. K.

Die Psalmen. Uebersetzt und Ausgelegtvon Dr. Ferdinand Hitzig. Erstu Band. Leipzig und Heidelberg : C. F. Winter.

We hail this work of Professor Hitzig*s as another valuable contribu- tion to our Biblical literature. It promises, when completed, to be one of the ablest and most learned of our aids to a knowledge of the Book of Psalms. That noble collection of sacred lyrical poetry has not hitherto been particularly fortunate in the treatment it has met with at the hands of interpreters. A rare combination of excellencies is re- quired in order to do it justice. Learning, that can successfully grapple with its many archaic and obscure expressions ; piety, that can enter heartily into the elevated spirit of devotion which it breathes ; and a sound evangelical faith, which traces David's Son and David's Lord throughout — are all necessary, in order to grapple successfully with the points of difficulty which it presents. It would be easy to name many commentaries on the book, in which one or more of these qualifications are to be traced, but difficult to point to one in which they exist iu

NEW series. — VOL. III., NO. VI. H H

466 Notices of Books. [July,

combination 60 fiilly as is desirable. In respect to learning, Dr. Hitrig leaves nothing more to be wished. But, when we find nim denying utterly the Davidic authorship of Psalm xxii., and admitting its Messianic application only by way of accommodation, we are compelled to say that, in our judgment, one essential requisite to a thoroughly successful exposition of the Psalms is still wanting. The work, how- ever, is, for its scholarship alone, worthy of the highest commendation, and cannot fail to enrich all who study it with care and diligence. R.

The Song of Songs. A revised Translation, with Introduction and Commentary. By Joseph Fkancis Thrupp, M.A., Vicar of Bar- rington, late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Author of '^An Introduction to the Study and Use of the Psalma," etc. Cambridge and London : Macmillan and Co., 1862.

Eighty-seven pages of Mr. Thrupp's volume are occupied with an Introduction, consisting of a discussion of the literary and critical questions which have arisen around the Song of Songs. The author does not believe in the Solomonic authorship, but supposes the Song was written a century after Solomon's time. The allegorical interpre- tation is adopted, and hence Christ is the beloved, and the Church the bride ; hence too the prophetic bearing of the Canticles. The arrange- ment of the Song is into seven portions : — The Anticipation, i. 2 — ^ii. 7 ; the Awaiting, ii. 8 — iii. 5 ; the Espousal and its Results, iii. 6 — v. 1 ; the Absence, v. 2 — 8 ; the Presence, v. 9 — viii. 4 ; Love's Triumph, viii. 5 — 12; the Conclusion, viii. 13, 14. Each of these sections is first translated and then commented upon. Much of the verbal criti- ciKm, and of that alone we now speak, is commendable, but we are afraid that the excellent author has sometimes gone a little too far. In general we regard the volume as a pleasant and a useful one. We do not see the force of all the arguments, but we thoroughly like the religious tone and manner of the book.

Bishop Colenso's Examination of the Pentateuch Examined. With an Appendix. By G. S. Drew, M. A., Author of " Scripture Lands in connexion with their History," "Reasons of Faith," etc. London: Bell and Daldy. Cambridge: Deighton, BeU, and Co. 1863.

Mr. Drew is a careful and accurate writer, and one who argues well upon the facts which his industry and experience enable him to bring together. The book before us is his contribution to the Colenso con- troversy, and we think it every way deserving of attention. Wo should infer, indeed, that these pages were written rapidly, and amid the first excitement caused by Bishop Colenso's work, but perhaps this very circumstance has imparted additional vigour and freshness to the style. If Mr. Drew had written more leisurely, or at least had allowed himself more time for the composition of his critique, he would pro- bably have entered more fully into some of his arguments, and would not have omitted any portions of Bishop Colenso's volume. His plan

1863.] Notices of Books. 467-

has been to arrange the questions under discussion into a number of groups. To this plan we see no particular objection, although probably Bishop Colenso would rather be answered in detail and in his own order. We have much pleasure in commending Mr. Drew's brief answer to the Bishop of Natal, only wishing it had not been so brief.

The Work and the Word; or, The Dealings and Doctrines of Ood, in relation to the State and Salvation of Man, summarily Reviewed, Reconciled, and Recommended, in accordance with the dictates of Human Reason, By Thomas Monck Mason. London : Wertheim, Macintosh and Hunt.

This work is very ingeniously contrived, and we agree with much that its pious author has written, but he is oiften tempted to speculate, and then we cannot pretend to follow him. Our plan and limits do not permit us to say much of a work so generally theological, and, if we may so speak, so theoretically theological.

Revelation* London : Wertheim and Co.

A VOLUME of seven hundred and forty pages by a lady who appears to have written some other works, but who would, we think, be better employed if Solomon's words described her, ^' She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff." The industry and zeal of the writer are undeniable ; she searches the Scriptures most diligently ; and she shews real tact in applying her principles. As however, we have often said, so we say again, that we do not at all believe in a system of exposition which turns the whole of the Old Testament history into type, prophecy, and allegory.

Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Von Dr. W. M. L. De Wbttb. Ersten Bandes, dritter Theil. Evan- gelium und Briefe Johannis. Fiinfte Auilage. Bearbeitet von Dr. Bruno Bbuckneb. Leipzig : S. Hirzel.

The name of De Wette is sufficient to suggest the nature and value of any work to which it is prefixed. His Exegetical Handbook has long held a high place in the estimation of Biblical scholars. It is marked throu^out by learning, honesty, and expository tact and power. We need not say that we differ widely from many of his in- terpretations, and from the principles of exegesis which he applied to the sacred Scriptures. But there is scarcely any critic whose judgment on difficult passages we more respect, or are more anxious to learn than De Wette. The reader who turns to his pages will generally find that in a very clear, succinct, and satisfactory manner, he unties some nodus which may have caused long hesitation or perplexity. The present volume contains his exegetical labours on the Grospel and Epistles of St. John, with additional remarks by Bruno Brttckner, who has edited the fourth and fifth editions. We have been greatly pleased by the manner in which this friend and follower of De Wette has executed his

H H 2

468 Notices of Booh. [July,

task. Many of the supplementary paragrapliB and sentenoes he has in- troduced are very valuable. The volume altogether forms an excellent guide fexcepHs excvpiendisj to a knowledge of the writing^ of St. John, and we very heartily commend it to the attention of our readers. R.

A Hebrew Qrammarj with Exercises. By M. M. Ealibch, Ph.D., M.A. In Two Parts. Part II., The exceptional forms and con- structions ; preceded* by an Essay on the History of the Hebrew Grammar. London: Longmans. 1863.

In this volume Dr. Ealisch commences with a good sketch of the history of the study of Hebrew grammar from the earliest times to the present. The rest of the book is occupied with a detailed account of Hebrew grammatical forms and peculiarities corresponding with the sections of the first part, and completing them. Exercises for practice are introduced throughout, and an index of rare and anomalous forms is given. We have examined the work very carefully, and we can say that it is one of real excellence, based on sound principles, and very complete in its elucidation of the phenomena of the sacred language. It is indeed, somewhat elaborate, and very minute in its details, as well as copious in its illustrations ; but a diligent and pains-taking student will find his profit in these circumstances. There are few Hebrew students who do not sometimes find it desirable to consult a grammar, and who are not disappointed when they do. To such, this work will be invaluable, as the author has done his utmost to explain eveiy difficulty.

The Material Universe: its Vastness and Durability, By Munoo Ponton, Esq., F.R.S.E. London, Edinburgh, and New York: T. Nelson and Sons.

The author's preface gives the best account of this original and veiy interesting book. Mr. Ponton says, *^ The object of this work is to present, in a condensed form, the evidences of intelligent design in the general structure of the material universe, and of the intentions of the Creator with respect to its permanence. The first part is devoted to a consideration of the material masses composing the host of heaven. Their vast numbers, their immense distances, their mutual relations, their motions, the laws to which they are subject, and the admirable devices for securing the permanence of their present arrangements, are successively brought under review. In the second part, Uie proofs of the existence of an universal ether, as the cause of luminous and other phenomena, are examined. The evidences in favour of the undulatory theory of light are sifted, and its principles are popularly explained. The beautiful phenomena, arising from the separation of light into its coloured elements, are described and illustrated* The polarization of light, and the wonderful appearances which it evolves, the recent dis- coveries in reference to the spectrum as an instrument of chemical analysis, the action of light in producing photographic and analogous

1863.] Notices of Books. 469

images, are all brotigbt under review, and their bearing on the nn- dnlatory theory discovered. Lastly, the presumed existence of an universal ether is viewed in relation to the question of the infinity of the material system in extent and duration. The whole subject is treated in a style as popular as its nature will allow.'-

Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Oospel of St Luke, Specially designed and adapted for the use of ministers and students. From the German of J. J. Van Oosterzee, D.D. Edited by J. P. Langs, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Bonn. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Vol. II. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1863.

By this volume, Messrs. Clark's edition of Oosterzee on St. Luke is completed. Its plan resembles that of Dr. Lange upon Matthew and Mark, and as we said of that, so would we say of this, that persons engaged in the careful study of the Gospels, and especially the clergy, will find the work an interesting and valuable auxiliary.

Exposition of Hoaea. By Rev. Jeremiah Burroughs. Jenkyn on JudCy and DaiUi on the Epistles to the PhiUppians and Colossians. Edinburgh: Nichol.

We call attention to these very cheap reprints of Mr. Sherman's edi- tions of a series of valuable old standard commentaries, of which we shall say more when Greenhill on Ezekiel appears to complete the set.

Christ the Lord, the Revealer of God, and the fulfilment of the Pro' phetic name ''^ Jehovah ;^' with a reply to Bishop Colenso on the name ^^ Jehovah,*' By Thomas Tyler, B.A., Author of "Je- hovah the Redeemer God." London : Hamilton, Adams, and Co. Edinburgh : J. Menzies. 1863.

Mr. Tyler, as the title of his book indicates, labours to shew that Christ as Lord is the revealer of God, and that the name " Jehovah" is prophetic of Him and fulfilled in Him. He has prefixed an Intro- duction, in which he replies to the principal arguments of Bishop Colenso to shew that the name "Jehovah" was unknown to the Israelites at the time of the Exodus, but was introduced at a later period. He takes the name "Jehovah" to signify "He who shall be," and to be prophetic of the Redeemer Christ the Lord. In work- ing, out his idea, he shews that throughout the New Testament there are many indications of the truth for which he contends. He exhibits much ingenuity in analyzing and shewing the bearing of a multitude of texts upon his subject, and if in the judgment of some his reasons are not all of equal weight, it will be admitted that he has made out a strong case. It would require more space than we can now spare to examine in detail the successive proofs and reasonings of the volume, but we commend it to the careful attention of those who wish to see how large an amount of evidence can be educed from the New Testa- ment in support of the theory here advocated.

470 Notices of Books. [July,

Bhort Sermons on Old Testament Messianic Texts, preached in the Chapel of Queen's College, Cambridge. By GsoRaB Phillips, D.D., President of the College. Cambridge : Deighton, Bell, and Co. London: Bell and Daldy. 1863.

These sermons derive their chief interest and importance from the place where they were preached. They are of an eminently prac- tical and evangelical character, and strongly exhibit the Messianic, and we believe only trae, application of the Old Testament texts on which they are founded. It is delightful to find, in these days of rash speculation and neological exposition, the learned President of King's College, Cambridge, guiding the youthful academic audience whom he addressed into " the old paths '' of prophetic interpretation, and setting before them so clearly the great truth that '^ the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.'' The occasion on which the sermons were delivered did not admit of much elaborate criticism, and they have been published apparently in the exact form in which they were preached. We rather regret that the author did not enter somewhat more fully into the subject when he committed his work to the press, as the topic which he has touched is one of vital importance at the present day. A thorough investigation of the Messianic passages in the Old Testament is one of the most urgent wants of our theological literature, and we hope these excellent discourses will be the means of directing new and earnest attention to the subject. R.

A Compendious Orammar of the Egyptian Language, as contained m the Coptic, Sahidic, and Bashmuric Dialects ; together with Alpha- bets and Numerals in the Hieroglyphic and Enchorial Characters. By the Rev. Henry Tattam, LL.D., D.D., F.R.S., Rector of Stamford Rivers. Second Edition, revised and improved. London and Edinburgh : Williams and Norgate. 1863.

The interest of the Coptic language arises from several causes. Its peculiar vocabulary and grammatical structure make it attractive to the comparative philologist. The existence of certain Egyptian words in the Hebrew Scriptures, and of some ancient translations of the Bible in some of the dialects of Egypt, awaken the curiosity of the Scripture student. The liturgical and other relics of this literature also deserve examination. Besides all which the relation which exists between the written and the hieroglyphic records of Egypt is of special importance. The philologist, the Biblical critic, and the Egyptologic at least, ought to understand the character and principles of the ancient languages or dialects of Egypt. Although we speak of Coptic generally as the name of the language of Egypt, the fact is that it was a dialect spoken in Lower Egypt, and hence called the Memphitic dialect, from Memphis the capital. Another dialect was the Sahidio or Thebaic, spoken in Upper Egypt, of which Thebes was the capital. A third dialect, the Bashmuric, was used in the Delta. All these dialects seem to exhibit a strong infusion of Greek, and this is remarkably the case with the Sahidic. Borne of the words are Shcmitic, bat the essential words of the dialects differ both from Greek and the Shemitic.

1868.] Notices of Books. 471

The present edition of Archdeacon Tattam's grammar is a decided improvement upon its predecessor. It contains in a compendious form all that is needful to inform the reader of the character of the language, and to teach the student the peculiarities of its structure. The differ- ences of the dialects are pointed out as we proceed, and we are enabled to compare their forms with each other. Considerable space is devoted to the etymology, and so much of syntax is given as is required to aid the learner to read the Bible with the help of a dictionary. The obser- vations which bear upon the syntax are interspersed throughout the book, but for the sake of praxis, part of the first chapter of St. John's Gospel is added. We have been much pleased with the simplicity and clearness of this grammar, and hope many may be induced to study it in view of the advantages of even a partial knowledge of the lang^ge. We may add that the book is admirably printed, and exhibits the hieroglyphic and enchorial alphabets and numerals.

Novum Testamentum Sinaitkum. Sive Novum Testamentum cum Epistula BamabflB et Fragmentis Pastoris ex Codice Sinaitico, auspiciis Alexandrii II. omnium Russiarum imperatoris, ex tene* bris protracto orbique litteramm tradito, accurate descripsit ^no- THEUs Fbidekigus Gonstantinus Tischendorf. Lipsie : F. A. Brockhaus.

In our number for April, we dwelt at some length upon the Codex Sinaiticus. We shall most likely return to the subject, but at present we can only chronicle the appearance of the minor edition, containing the New Testament, the Epistle of Bamabus, and the fragments of the Pastor, with the Prolegomena, and the notes upon the corrections, which have been so freely added to the text. We print among our " Miscellanies *' the rest of the correspondence which Simonides has called forth in connexion with this subject, and we hope the last — from Mount Sinai itself — ^will close for ever that profitless dispute. What now remains is to study the text, to determine its real critical value, and to ascertain, as well as may be, the date of its production. Time will be required for these things, and we hope to see them fairly determined.

The Historic Char<xcter of i^e Pentateuch Vindicated. A Reply to Part I. of Bishop Colenso's Critical Examination. By a Lat* HAN OF THE Church OF- ENGLAND. Loudou : William Skeffington. 1863.

Tnis is one of the many books which have appeared in answer to Bishop Colenso's Critical Examination of the Pentateuch and Books of Joshua. It is somewhat ominous that it has been received with greater confidence because it is the work of a layman. The Bishop of Natal unquestion- ably intended his book for ordinary readers, and believed that his arguments were such as any intelligent Englishman might easily com- prehend. Moreover, he seems to have meant, by the very fact of addressing himself to the many, to protest against any monopoly by

472 Notices of Books. [July,

the clergy of theolo^cal science or Biblical criticism. An answer, therefore, to his criticisms by a layman, is plainly fitting, and exactly what we may suppose Bishop Colenso would wish to receive. At the same time, quite apart from any sacerdotal pretensions which might be considered obsolete or extravagant, it would be absolutely filial to the existing ecclesiastical order if the laity were to become generally preferred to the clergy as theological guides. It is presumed that the education of the clergy is intended and adapted to make them com- petent instructors in Christian doctrine, and the criticism of thoae writings from which Christian doctrine is chiefly derived. If they were deliberately rejected and their instructions set at nought, the reason of such contempt would be only too obvious. It would be the belief, whether well or ill-founded, that though extremely well able, the clergy had become entirely unwiUing to speak the truth. If it should ever be discovered, or even strongly suspected, that those who profess to be teachers and guides are only slavish imitators and fol- lowers of those whom they profess to lead, their honour and influence will be at an end for ever ; or will remain, if at all, only as a source of spiritual demoralization.

Yet, though we cannot for an instant assume that a layman of the Church of England is more honest or impartial than a clergyman, yet what he says may be of more value as an argumentum ad konunem. Indeed, Bishop Colenso's argument is only ad hominem. It is addressed only to those who claim for the whole and for every separate part of the Holy Scriptures, a strict infallibility. For those whose theory of inspiration does not involve this. Dr. Colenso's book has scarcely any significance. It may be examined by such with the most unimpassioned calmness, the real spiritual value of the Scriptures being scarcely in the slightest degree affected by it. At the same time it is a criticism, and apart from the interests, real or imaginary, which may be at stake, its methods and conclusions may fairly be examined. This is what a layman of the Church of England has endeavoured to do. The chapters of his book correspond pretty nearly with the main diviaions of Dr. Colenso's, and contain not unskilful answers to the Bishop's objections. There is a fairness about the book and a respectful treat- ment of the author whom it is intended to answer, which contrast very fiivourably with the imbecile insolence with which the religious world has lately been made too familiar, and which is in fact more con- temptible on the right side of a controversy than on the wrong side. It is impossible, in a brief notice, to give any analysis of the contents of this book, but there is one proof of the writer's moderation which ought not to be overlooked, for in these controversies, moderation, though in itself only a negative excellence, attains something of even positive worth. The " Layman'' very wisely declines to avail himself of the testimony of the New Testament in his attempt to prove the historic character or Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. The use that has been made in this controversy of the supposed testimony of Jesus Christ, is for the purposes of general criticism wholly irrelevant. It involves certain theological hypotheses which would* be rejected by

1868.] Notices of Books. 473

very many who are unquestionably orthodox, and to a reverent piety it is every way offensive. Nothing can be more impolitic (to put the matter on the very lowest ground) tban to make the divine wisdom of our Lord responsible for those canons of criticism and literary opinions which are notoriously uncertain, fluctuating and progressive. Nor is any theory of the wisdom of Jesus admissible which would be incom- patible with his true humanity, and therefore equivalent to a denial of the Incarnation itself. Assuredly modem criticism will not submit its conclusions to -Dives and Lazarus.

Both for its skill, and moderation, and Christian courtesy, we commend this book to a candid and respectful attention. E.

Lectures on Theology^ Science^ and Revelation. By the late Rev. George Legge, LL.D., of Gallowtreegate Chapel, Leicester. With a Memoir, by James Legge, D.D., Hongkong (of the Lon- don Missionary Society). Edited by James Legge, D.D., and John Legge, M.A. London : Jackson, Walford, & Hodder. 1863.

These lectures, though really sermons, are a kind of theological course suited for the instruction of an ordinary congregation. Unhappily, ordinary congregations are so extremely inattentive and so indifferent to truth, as distinguished from their own opinions, that even Dr. Legge' s sermons might be considered dry and unsuitable. Their method is clear, and, on the whole, good. It is good, inasmuch as it proceeds from man in his true condition — ^the ideal man — to sin and redemption. Yet, surely, if these sermons are intended as a complete course of theo- logical lectures, they should have begun with God. It may be true that we only arrive at the knowledge of God as the last and highest result of all experience and thought : yet none the less for that is it true that, however and whenever arrived at, our theology must deter- mine our doctrine of man and of redemption. The doctrine of divine sovereignty, as ordinarily stated, is perfectly useless, because nobody denies that God can do what He likes ; the only question any body cares to have answered is. What will He like to do ? The law, the gospel, and, above all, the final condition of men, must depend upon the nature and being of God. Dr. Legge finds it extremely difficult to arrive at any conclusions either as to the ideal or actual condition of man, because sin on the one hand, and the gospel on the other, have prevented his becoming what he would otherwise have been. In fact, like that of almost all dissenting divines, Dr. Legge' s theology sets out not from God, nor from the ideal of humanity, but from the Gospel.

The lectures on the final condition of the wicked, discuss one of those questions which are the questions of our own age, and they state the case in precisely that form in which those who deny the endlessness of the punishment of the wicked would wish to have it stated. It is impossible, in a short notice, to examine the argument of these lectures, but they place that awful conclusion at which Dr. Legge, in common with most orthodox divines, has arrived, as plainly and boldly as pos- sible before the reader. The wicked will never become good, the

474 Notices of Books. [Jaly^

miserable will never become bappj, and the triumph of Almighty God tvill be not over the hearts of His unrepenting enemies, but only over their external circumstances. At the same time, Dr. Legge believes that '* all the wicked will have forfeited all the rewards of time, and all the boons of the Gospel ; but while there will be of them who shall sink into the lowest deep, and in that deep find yet a lower deep, there may be of them who shall find not only an endurable but enjoyable existence on the very confines of heaven."

An enjoyable damnation is not likely to commend these lectures either to the orthodox or to heretics ; and the denial of the dogma of total depravity will be considered by very many extremely unsavouiy. It must also be admitted that Dr. Legge's lectures would have been far more valuable if their conclusions had been modified by a better know- ledge of the history of doctrines, and a culture less exclusively Biblical. At the same time, they are written in a thoroughly Christian spirit, with a very conscientious carefulness and with a reverent caution, which are deserving of all praise. K.

History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ By Dr. J. A. Dokner, Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin. Division Second, from the end of the fourth century to the present time. Vol. III., with Appendix, containing a review of the controversies on the subject which have been agitated in Britain since the middle of the seventeenth century to the present time. By Patrick Faibbain, D.D., author of Typology of Scripture^ etc, Edinburgh : T. and T. Clark. London : Hamilton, Adams, and Co. Dublin : John Robertson and Co. 1863.

The translation of Dr. Domer's elaborate and highly important and useful work is now completed, and some of our readers may wish to be advertised of the fact To the present volume an analysis of the whole five is prefixed, and there has been added, as an appendix, a historical and critical review of the controversies respecting the person of Christ, which have been agitated in Britain since the middle of the seventeenth century to the present time, by the Rev. Dr. Fairbaim. An index to the work is supplied, and we are very glad to see it.

The Pentateuch and Booh of Joshiui critically examined. By the Right Rev. J. William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal. Part II. The age and authorship of the Pentateuch considered. The same work. Part III., On the age and authorship of Deuteronomy* London : Longmans.

We have not yet seen anything which can be called a reply to Bishop Colenso's Part II. Most of the publications, smaller and larger, of which a word is said in this number of our Journal, as bearing upon the Colenso controversy, relate to Part I., and are by no means all deserving to be called refutations. Generally speaking they are useful and well-meant publications called forth by the times and adapted to them. Of the second part of Dr. Colenso*s work, then, we have seen

1863.] Notices of Books. 475

no adequate recitation, and now that a third part is published, we desire to say that this controversy must be conducted henceforth by those who have the requisite intellect and scholarship. We hope the crowd of well-meaning, but oftentimes inefficient writers who have answered Part I. will now be silent. The dignity and seriousness of the debate demand this. The notes which we ourselves had intended to print upon Part II. we shall now defer until we can go carefully over Part III., which arrived too late to be done justice to in the present issue of the Journal.

The Exodus of Israel: its difficulties examined, and its truth confirmed. With a reply to recent objections. By the Rev. T. R. Birks, M.A., Rector of Kelshall, Herts. London: Religious Tract Society. 1863.

In this volume Mr. Birks takes the defence of orthodoxy, and replies in detail to the first volume of Bishop Colenso. The plan comprises a preface, an introduction, twenty-two chapters of text, and two indexes. Seventeen of the chapters directly answer the arguments of Bishop Colenso ; the eighteenth and nineteenth chapters review the numerical and historical objections to the Pentateuch, and chapters twenty to twenty-two constitute an argument for the truth and Mosaic author- ship of the Pentateuch, deduced from the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Gospels. When we consider the little time which Mr. Birks can have had for the composition of this volume, we feel justified in calling it an extraordinary production. Much that it contains will be of per- manent value, and will be read with profit when the controversy which has called it forth has subsided. Some of the arguments are exceed- ingly well put, and the author's manner is generally lucid and intelli- gible. Occasionally, we think, stronger proofs might have been adduced, and here and there we should object to the views defended, but on the whole the book has our cordial approval.

Practical and Cfritical Commentary on the Epistles of the New Testa- ment, for English Readers. Part I. Epistle to the Romans. By C. £. Prighard, M.A. London : Longman. 1862.

This little volume contains the Epistle to the Romans in the Author- ized Version, and a practical commentary upon it. The critical element is not prominent, but we think the book cannot &il to interest and instruct the plain Christian reader of this important portion of the Word of God.

An Examination of Bishop Oolenso*s Difficulties with regard to the Pentateuch ; and some reasons for believing in its authenticity and Divine Origin, By Rev. Alexander McCaul, D.D. People's Edition. London : Rivingtons.

Wg have been pleased with the scholarlike and religions, as well as what we may call the straightforward and business-like tone and

476 Notices of Books. [July,

aspect of this txM>k. Those who wish for a short tod easy method of reply to the arguments which Bishop Colenso has succeeded in making 80 popular, should hy all means look into Dr. Mc Caul's Examinatian,

The Ordinances of Spiritual Worship^ their history^ meaning^ and end comidered. In a series of essays from the writii^ of the Rev. E. T. March Phillips, M. A., late Rector of Hathern, and Chancellor of the Diocese of Gloucester. Selected and edited by his Daughter. London: Longmans. 1863.

The title of this work will shew that it deals with theological and ecclesiastical questions ; we can, therefore, only say that it is written in a thoroughly religious spirit, and will be valued by those who knew him as a lasting memorial of the teachings of a good man.

On the Polyphony of the Assyrio- Babylonian Cuneiform WriUng. A Letter to Professor Renouf from Edward Hincks, D.D. From the Atlantis^ Vol. IV. Dublin : J. F. Fowler.

This is a very able and learned letter upon a subject of much import- ance. We have been greatly pleased with it, and rejoice to see it reprinted in a separate fonn. The author has dealt skilfully and in- telligibly with problems which few or none have mastered better than himself, and we hope many will avail themselves of the opportunity of reading what he has here written. We are not able to give an ouUine of the arguments and facts of the letter, but we believe it to be a very valuable contribution to a class of studies which is gradually claiming attention and rising into importance. The students of Biblical and ancient history cannot afford to remain altogether ignorant of the pro- gress which is making in Assyrian studies. New light is coming in, and things which were doubtful or unknown are being revealed. We thank Dr. Hincks for this fresh proof of his zeal and proficiency.

1. What is that world from which u?e, as Christians^ are exhorted to come out and he separate f By Daniel Benbam. London : Printed for private circulation. 1859.

2. The Redemption of Man, By the Rev. J. R. Titcomb, M.A. London : James Nisbet and Co. 1860.

3. On the Qualijicaiions for Religious Enquiry, London: James Nisbet and Co. 1861.

4. On the Jews^ Return to Palestine, By Daniel Benham. London : Printed for private circulation. 1862.

d. An attempt to remove those Objections of Dr, Colenso which are contained in the second chapter of his work. By Daniel Benham. London : G. Norman. 1862.

6- Bishop Colenso's Fallacies, By Thomas De Meschin, LL.D., F.S.A., of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. London * Ilatton and Son. 1863.

1868.] * Notices of Books. 477

7. Ckneral Observations on the Preface and Introductory Remarks to Bishop Colenso*s Work^ By Henby George, M.R.C.S. London : Griffith and Tanan.

8. The Pentateitch viewed from a Christian standpoint. London: Nisbet and Co. 1863.

Seyen out of the eight publications in the preceding list were read at the meetings of the Christian Union Institute, at 8 St. Martin's Place. Our readers will gather from the mere titles of the above essays, that the gentlemen, lay and clerical, who meet at the Institute, are anxious for the elucidation of subjects of importance to Biblical students, and that they agree in holding evangelical sentiments, however they may differ on speculative questions. The papers sent us shew much care in their preparation, and some of them are exceedingly good. We believe that an institution which aims at the free and candid discussion of important topics by the combination of laity and clergy is one which deserves encouragement, and may be the means of much good. Our space will not allow us to criticize the papers enumerated, but we have much pleasure in notifying their existence, and the circumstances under which they have been. produced.

%* TkefoUowmg fforit have atto reached tu, but moetly too late for notice in thie

number.

The New Testameot for English Readers ; contaiDiDg the Authorized Version. With marginal corrections of readings and renderings, marginal references, and a critical and explanatory commentary. By Henry Alford, D.D., Dean of Canter- bury. In Two Vols. Vol. L, Part I. The three first Gospels. London: Rivingtons.

Our readers will join us in thanking Dean Alford for this convenient and useful aid to the stndy of the New Testament, to the appearance of which we very cordially invite attention.

A Commentary, critical, experimental, and practical, on the Old and New Testaments. Vol. v., Matthew— John. By Rev. David Brown, D.D. Glasgow: W. Collins.

The commentary of which Dr. Brown's volume forms a part is exceedingly cheap, and this portion of it, at least, seems to be remarkably well executed.

Ausgew&hlte Psalmen im Anschlnsse an die Evangelien des KircheijahrB, Ausgelegt von F. Schaubach. Halle : R. Miihlmann.

The Nullity of Metaphysics as a science among the sciences. Set forth in six brief Dialogues. London: Longmans.

The Evangelic Theory ; or, Christianity — not Theism — most in accordance with moral development. A popular appeal adapted to the times. London : H. J. Tresidder.

A Charge delivered to the Clergy and Churchwardens of the Archdeaconry of Sud- bury. By Lord Arthur Hervey, M.A. London : Simpkin and Co.

Inaugural Address delivered before the Annual Assembly of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. By Enoch Mellor, M.A. London: Jackson, Walford, and Hodder.

Past and present treatment of Roman Catholic children in Scotland by the Board of Supervision for the relief of the Poor. By R. Campbell, Esq. London and Edinburgh : Williams and Norgate.

Tlie Tubingen School and its Antecedents. A review of the history and present condition of Modern Theology. By R. W. Mackay, M.A. London and Edin- burgh : WiUiaros and Norgate.

( 478 ) [July,

JOSCELLAIOES.

The Codex Sinaiiicus and Simonidet. — We coDtinue from our last number the letters which have appeared in this controversy, only observ- ing that we have endeavoured to include in the series all the more im- portaut documents. On January 17, the Parthenon printed a letter by a writer calling himself "Causidicus," in consequence of which the following came out in the numbers for January 24 and 81.

CODEX SINAITICUS.

The following is a translation of Professor Tischendorfs letter in the AUgemeine Zeitung of December 23, 1862, alluded to by *^ Caosidicas" in our last number :—

" The Codex JSinaiiicue written in 1839. — Any one in Germany who recollects the palimpsest forgeries of Simonides, by means of which, notwithstanding previous brandings and imprisonments in Gkeece, he contrived to outwit some of the most renowned German savanU^ until he was unmasked by myself towards the end of January, 1856, and arrested as a forp;er in consequence of similar convictions obtained against him simultaneously m Berlin, will probably find it incredible that this same [we refrain from translating the epithet used in the original] should yet at this present moment find in England papers ready to print his insane fancy, that he had in his youthful days (in 1856 he gave his a^e as thirty-three years ; see Lycurgos's JEfUhiilluvgenj p. 45,) the pleasure of writ- ing the Codex Sinaiticus ; and it will be equally incredible that he should by these phantasies actually puzzle some people. The splendid edition of the manu- script, in four volumes, which has just left the press, and of which one hundred copies are for sale, will at once convince every competent judge who may still en- tertain anv doubt upon the matter, that Simonides could not have chosen a more unfavourable subject for his impudent inventions. He pretends to have taken a Moscow Bible manuscript as the basis, and to have compared manuscripts from Mount Athos. But in the New Testament alone the Sinaitic text difiers essentiidly (prineipieUJ iu several thousand places from all the Moscow editions, and all the manuscripts which have been written within the last thousand years ; occa- sionally it stands quite alone in its readings ; sometimes it agrees only with the Vatican or the Cambridge manuscripts, and contains many readings which munt appear gross heresies in a copy destined as a present to the orthoidox emperor. A^ain, in the Old Testament, the text of Tobit and Judith, for example, are of quite a different recension — a recension still preserved principally in old Latin and old Sjrraio documents. How could this have been taken from the Moscow edition ? or how could it be brought into it ? Equally unfortunate with this assertion about the source is his fable of the initials which he says he painted on the margin, and of which there is not the slightest trace in the manuscript. A clumsy misconception of my words only has given rise to this fable.

'* But instead of heaping up proofs — which are within easy reach of every amateur with some little ^isure at his command — against this bold fabulist and rival of Paksphatus, it is more to the purpose to invite every one who is still reall^r deceived to an inspection of the Leipsic Codex Friderico-Augustanus, at least if a journey to St. retersburg is too much to ask.

" Simonides certainly took gowL care, during his long stay at Leipsic, not to say that he was the writer of this much prized treasure of the University library, where he was a constant visitor ; since, in that case, a place would doubtless soon have been found for him in a lunatic asylum.

** Bat sound eyes and ordinary common sense are quite sufficient for the purpose of seeing the absurdity of the Simonidean tale, even if there should be people who still beUeve in the genuineness of his palimpsests and of all his former and later fabrications, the genuineness of which is still unflinchingly upheld by himself. But then, ^mundus vuUi decipi,' and ^volent non fit injuria/

" TiSCHENDOBF."

]863u] . Miscellanies. 479

^ Sir, — Your ooirespondent * CauBidicas ' has stated what he conceives to be the points at issae in the controversy between Simonides and Tischcndorf. With his evident desire to be impartial, it is to be regretted that he has not made him- self master of the facts of the case. Allow me to restate two of the difficulties on Bimonides' side of the question, which * Cansidicns' has represented wrongly or imperfectly. 1. Simonides does not claim to have written the Codex 8inaiticus in twenty bat in eight months; in the interval, namely, between November, 1839, and August, ld40, when his uncle died. * Book wood' is not a parallel case. 2. Tischendorf not only professes to have seen the manuscript in 1844, but to have brought part of it to Europe, which he deposited in the Leipzig University library, and published in facsimile in 1846. As Simonides s&ys he saw the manuscript entire in 1852, you will perceive that this considerably increases the difficulty of believing his story. We have, therefore, in this case something more than * conflicting statements.'

*^ Your correspondent is unjust to Tischendorf in describing him as ' a man previously obscure.' He has been honourably known to the world of Biblical criticism for at least twenty-five years ; for the greater part of that period he has been highly distin^ished.

"The question at issue is not a theological one, as ^Causidicus' seems to imagine; it is simply a question of truth, and resolves itself into this, — *l8 the Codex Sinaiticus a genuine ancient manuscript, or was it written by Simonides when he was fifteen years old?'

** * Causidicus' makes himself merry with * the old rag,' as he is pleased to call it, in which Tischendorf found the remainder of the manuscript in 1859. Tis- chendorf tells us himself he found it wrapped in a cloth. 1 saw, about a year and a half ago, a Samaritan Pentateach, which had been brought from Nablus in exactly the same kind of covering : it is now in the library of the Comte de Paris. It was wrapped in a cloth for precisely the same reason as the Codex Sinaiticus, because there was not a vestige of binding, and the leaves were all loose.

" In one part of his letter * Causidicus' contradicts himself. I will quote two sentences, and leave your readers to judge. He asks, *AVbo ever heard of a manuscript Bible being enveloped in an old rag in a convent of monks ? Is not this quite as improbable as any part of the story of Simonides ? ' In another paragraph, after referring to the description which Burokhardt gave of the cha- racter and ignorance of the monks of Sinai, he adds — ' Under such circumstances, can we wonder that the * librarian' of the ^ear 1852 should have been ignorant of the advent of the manuscript in question, which might probably have been thrown carelessly into the * library' several years before his arrival, and on which the good monks would never have bestowed a second glance ?' * Causidicus' has unconsciously supplied the solution of his former difficulty.

" The question at issue between Simonides and Tischendorf is of a very gprave nature. It cannot be settled without leaving a dark stain upon the character of one of two men. Meanwhile, I venture to express the opinion that the manner in which it has been treated by * Causidicus' will not help towards bringing it to a conclusion. — I am, etc.,

" W. Aldib WmoHT. " Trin. CoU., Cambridge, Jan, 19."

*^ To the JEditor of the ^Parthenon.* — Sir, permit me to lay before you the fol- lowing extract from Burckhardt's Travels : — * In the room anciently the residence of the archbishop, which is very elegantly paved with marble and extremely well furnished, though at present unoccupied, is preserved a beautiful ancient manuscript of the Gospels in Greek, which, I was told, was given to the convent by * an emperor called Theodosius.' It is written in letters of gold upon vellum, and ornamented with portraits of the apostles ' CTraveU in Syria and the Holy Land, p. 551).

" This passage, with a brief account of the manuscripts in the library of the convent of Mount Sinai, immediately follows the words quoted by ^ Causidicus '

480 Miscellanies. [July^

in the Parthenon of the 17th ultimo, in proof of the ignorance of the monkg of Sinai.

" The visit of Burckhardt to Sinai took place in the spring of 1816.

" After this, it may be superfiaous to add that I mvself saw the manuscript in Marchf 1837) and described it — sufficiently, I think, to establish its identity — in my Letters on JEgyvtj JSdom, and the Holy Landy published in 1838.*

^^The reason why rococke and others did not find the manuscript in the library of the convent was, that it was not kept there, but in the treasury, or archbishop's apartment, as mentioned by Burckhardt. It was in consequence of what Burckhardt had said, that I applied for permission to see it. The manuscript was certainly cherished with great care, and was (I think) entire when I examined it.

" The facts and dates here submitted may be of assistance to your readers in forming their opinion on the merits of the pending controversy.

** I have the honour to remain, your obedient servant,

" Lindsay.

** P.S. — I should have said somewhat on the subject of Oriental manuscripts being wrapt in ' old rags,' if Mr. W. Aldis Wright had not noticed it sufficiently in your last number. These rags are sometimes the remains of what has been originally rich embroidery. A Sanskrit work, of rarity and value, printed for the Brahmins in imitation of manuscript, and unbound, is lying beside me at this moment, enveloped in what may similarly be described aa an * old rag,' just as it arrived from India.

»♦ Haigh HaU, January 26, 1863."

On the 28th of January another batch of letters appeared in the Guardian: —

" Sir, — As Dr. Simonides has cited a letter which he wrote to me in uncial characters in October last, while he was at Cambridge, and as I have with my own eyes seen and examined the Codes Sinaiticus within the last few months, ~ perhaps you will allow me to say a few words.

** The note which Dr. Simonides wrote to me was to convince me and my friends that it was quite possible for him to have written the volume in question, and to confirm his assertion that the uncial character of the MS. was as familiar and easy to him to write as the common cursive hand of the present day.

** He had invited some of us to Christ's College to examine his papyri and to discuss matters fairly. He could speak and understand English pretty well, but his friend was with him to interpret and explain. The}^ first taxed us with believing in the antiquity of MSS. solely on the authority of one man like Tischendorf, and they really seemed to believe that all people in the West were as ignorant of Greek as the Greeks are of Latin. But the great question was, * How do you satisfy yourselves of the genuineness of any manuscript V I first replied that it was really difficult to define, that it seemea to be more a kind of instinct than anything else. Dr. Simonides and his friend readily caught at this as too much like vague assertion, and they naturally^ ridiculed any such idea. But I further said that I had lived for six years past in the constant, almost daily, habit of examining manuscripts, — not merely the texts of the works con- tained in the volumes, but the volumes themseWes as such ; the writing, the

' " The passage is as follows : — * In the archbishop's apartment, now used as the Treasury, we were shewn a most beautiful manuscript of the Gospels in Greek, on vellum, in uncial or capital letters of gold. I thought the good father would never have done turning over the preliminary leaves of illuminations, and arranging the silk screens interposed between them. Would that it were in the British Museum ! I wonder whether it has ever been collated.' To this I added the followinff note in the fourth edition, published in 1847 : — * The illuminations consist of fiul-len^h figures of the apostles, and are extremely well executed, the colours as brUliant as if laid on yesterday. It is at least twelve hundred years old.* "

1863.] Miscellanies. 481

paper or parchment, the arrangement and nnmherin^ of the sheets, the distinc- tion between the original Tolume and any additional matter by later hands, etc.; and that with experience of this kind, though it might be dimcalt to assign the special ground or my confidence, yet I hardly ever found myself deceived even by a very well-executed facsimile. All this Dr. Bimonides allowed and confirmed. He gave the instance of the Jews in the East, who could in an instant tell the exact proportion of foreign matter in a bottle of otto of roses, where the most careful chemical analysis might fail to detect the same. Indeed, any tradesman acquires the same sort of experience with regard to the quality of the particular goods which are daily passing through his hands ; and this is all that I claimed for myself. Dr. Simonides afterwaras told me himself that this was the only safe method of judging, that there was no gainsaying such evidence, and that he only fought against persons . who made strong and vague assertions without either proof or expenence. Yet when I told him that I had seen the Codex Sinaiticus, he spoke as if bound in honour not to allow in this case the value of that very criterion which he had before confessed to be the surest ; and he wrote me the letter to which he refers, in the hope of convincing me. I told him as politely as I could that I was not to be convinced against the evidence of my senses. ,

" On the 18th of July last I was at Leipzig with a friend, and we called on Professor Tischendorf, Though I had no introduction but my occupation at Cambridge, nothing could exceed his kindness ; we were with him for more than two hours, and I hM the satisfaction of examining the MS. after m^ own fashion. I had been anxious to know whether it was written in even continuous quater- nions throughout, like the Ck)dex Bez», or in a series of fasciculi, each ending with a quire of varying size, as the Codex Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, hv-the-by, is of itself sufficient to prove that it cannot be the volume which Dr. Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos.

" Now it must be remembered that Dr. Simonides always maintained two points — first, that the Mount Athos Bible written in 1840 for the Emperor of Russia was not meant to deceive any one, but was only a beautiful specimen of writing in the old style, in the character used by the writer in his letter to me ; secondly, that it was Professor Tischendorf 's ignorance and inexperience which rendered him so easily deceived where no deception was intended. For the second assertion, no words of mine are needed to accredit an editor of such long standing as Professor Tischendorf. For the first, though a carefully made fac- simile of a few leaves inserted among several genuine ones might for a time deceive even a well-practised eye, yet it is utterly impossible that a book merely written in the antique style, and without any intent to deceive, should mislead a person of moderate experience. For myself, I have no hesitation in saying that I am as absolutely certain of the genuineness and antiquity of the Codex Sinaiticus, as I am of my own existence. Indeed I cannot hear of any one who has seen the book who thinks otherwise. Let any one go to St. Petersburg and satisfy himself. Let Dr. Simonides ^o there and examine it. He can never have seen it himself, or I am sure that, with his knowledge of MSS., he would be the first to agree with me. The Mount Athos Bible must be a totally different book ; and I only regret, for the sake of him and his many friends in England, that he has been 1^ on, from knowing that his opponents here have seen no more of the original book than he has himself, to make such rash and contra- dictory assertions, that sober people are almost driven to think that the Greek is playing with our matter-of-fact habits of mind, and that as soon as he has tired out his opponents, he will come forward and ask his admirers for a testi- monial to his cleverness. " Hehrt Beadseuw.

" Cambridge, Jan, 24, 1863.''

" Sir, — I have but two remarks to make in reply to the long letter which Simonides wrote to you last week.

" He now says that he was bom in 1820, and was nineteen when he wrote the Codex Sinaiticus. This is in direct contradiction of his statement in the Cambridge University Library in October last. I asked him through his inter-

NBW SERIES. VOL. III., NO. VI. I I

-182 Miscellanies, [July,

preter, in what year he professed to have written the Codex, and how old he was at the time. The reply was, in the year 1839, when he was fifteen yean old. Mr. Bradshaw was present at the time and heard it. JSx pede Hercukm^ as Mr. Hodgkin says.

** In his letter to the (htardian of the 3rd of Septemher, 1862, Bimonides says — 'Having then examined the principal copies of the Hol^ Bcriptnrea preseryed in Mount Athos, I heg^n to practise the principles of cahnaphy, and the learned Benedict, taking a copy of the Moscow edition of hoth Testaments (pofolished and presented to the Greeks by the illnstrions brothers Zoeimas), col- lated it with the ancient ones, and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he gave it into m^ hands to transcribe.' I submit that, allowhig for all possible errors in translation, this passage could nerer mean what Simonides would imply in the long statement which he gave last week, and to which I refer your readers. The fact is, he has made inconvenient admissions, which are fatal to his case, and therefore wants to get rid of them. He repudiates the Biographical Memoir by Mr. Stewart for the same reasons. It is perfectly evident on reading that Memoir that it is translated from the Greek, at least in many parts, and that it is made up from materials which Simonides alone could have supplied. How else is the comical spelling of his adversary's name, '• Tissendorf,' to be explained ? Who but Simonides knows anything about the ' Theological Writings' to which reference is made ? The truth is, this Memoir contains an awkward admission with regard to the Uranius MS. which Simonides now denies having made. The difficulty which is presented by the note on the eighth page of the God. Frid. Aug. he evades bv asserting that it has a double meaning.

"That Simonides has been called Euclid's Compasses, Chalkenteros, and other hard names, proves nothing. He has omitted to mention many which have been g^ven him in Europe. With regard to his challenge, by which he offers, for the modemte sum of £10,000 sterling, to reproduce the Codex Sinaiticus, 1 reply as follows. My object is not to prove that Simonides can write something which shall look like an old MS., but to shew that he did not write the one in question. To all my arguments he has given a most lame and unsatisfactory reply ; he accuses me of lack of judgment and discernment, of straining at a ^nat and swallowine a camel. It seems to me that all the camel swallowing IS done by his own admirers.

** I regret that Mr. Hodgkin declines to give me a description of the letter of Kallinikos, which bears date 1868. I have now no opportunity of examining it, and must ask any of your readers who have seen it to favour me with an accurate account of it, especially as to whether it is written on one leaf or on two.

" Simonides now points to an acrostic in Gen. xxiv. as proof that he wrote the Codex Sinaiticus. He knows perfectly well that no part of Genesis has been recovered, and therefore makes his assertion with Ml assurance that it cannot be put to the test.

" Allow me to ask him one question through the medium of your columns. In the JAterary CkizetU of Aug. 31, 1863, he announced the discovery of a papyrus of the first century more than Hhree feet long, containing part of the first Epistle of St. John, and the whole of the second and third Epistles. The disputed verse, 1 John v. 7, he gave in full. Where is this papyrus, and why does he not exhibit it ? *♦ A. W. WBiairr.

" 7Vt9% (H2e^, Oambridge, Jan. 25, 1863."

" Sur,~The letter of Mr. W. A. Wright in tiie Guardian of this week offers many temptations to the retort courteous, which, however, I mean to resist, and merely reply to one or two of his statements. The first two relate to a conver- sation carried on through an interpreter, and of which Simonides gives an account differing from that of Mr. Wright. He stated at Cambridge that the entire note at the end of Esdras was taken from a comnaratively recent codex on paper,

E reserved at Mount Athos, which was probably a copy from some earlier mS [e now further states that it was inserted there as a memorandum or reference to a codex which, though not valuable on account of its age, contained some good readings, and that a great number of the notes in both &q Codex Friderioo-

1863.] Miscellanies. 483

Aagustanns and Codes Smaitions will also be found on investigation to bare been written as memoranda for alterations in a subsequent codex.

" Simonides has all along stated to bis friends (though I do not think be has niade the assertion in print) that long before the conclusion of his task he became dissatisfied with the appearance of a codex containing so many corrections, and that, although he proceeded with the work, he added Yarious notes to indicate the alterations, botn in the text and in the spacing of the lines, which he thought advisable in a second copy. In reply to Mr. Wright's second state- ment, Simonides simply says that the description given by Tischendorf is incor- rect, and that he knows that the MS. was not in 1844 in tHe dilapidated condition described by that gentleman.

** Here we have two contradictory accounts, upon the truth of neither of which we seem to have the materials to decide, though the letters of Kallinikos favour the version of Simonides. In reply to Mr. Wright's complaint of the inaccuracy of Simonides' description of the state in which he found the MS. in 1852, I may state that his letter to the Ouardian was very incorrectly trans- lated, and that this paragraph does not give the full sense cf the original, and as the identity of the Ckxlex Sinaiticus with the Codex Frideric4>-Augustanus was well known to him, and had often been commented on by him long before he sent his letter to the GfuardiaTi^ any omiision of the description of it§ imperfect Mtate in that letter was not owing to hie ignoranee ofthia identity,

** It is now just three years since Simonides first committed to writing in England (in a letter to Mr. Charles Stewart, dated 4th ^eth) January, 1860) his vereion of the history of the Codex Sinaiticus. He had his own reasons, I sup- pose, for not letting the whole public into the secret at an earlier period than last autumn, but the facts of his early claim are well known to his friends, and upset almost all Mr. Wright's theories. It was not till he saw in Mr. Newton's bands the facsimile of the Codex Sinaiticus, published by Tischendorf, that he felt as perfectly assured as he has since done that the MS. was his own work, and his letter to Kallinikos in 1861, asking for a further confirmation, seems to me to have been the natural act of a man desirous of makin|^ assurance doubly sure, before committiuj? himself publidjr to an assertion which he knew would call forth expressions of disbelief and derision.

** In conclusion, may I express the hope that for the future all vague sur- mises and wild conjectures may cease to find expression in the correspondence upon this grave and difficult subject, and that Defore long the Uterary world may have the opportunity of formmg its own judgment, based upon the results of a meeting in London between Tischendorf and Simonides, at wnich the whole ground of we controversy may be traversed, and one of the antagonists may be compelled to retract his error.

" West Derby, Jan, 23, 1863. *' John Eliot Ho]>okin.

" PS. I observe in the long letter of Simonides published in the Owirdian of Jan. 21, that he states he was bom on the 5th of November, 1860, and I have no doubt myself that he is as old as he there claims to be.

" But in the Athenasum of December 21, 1861, be made the statement that he was bom on the 11th of November, 1824. It is right that this wide discre- pancy should be pointed out, though I have no doubt that it arises from inadvert- ence. The letter to the Athmmtm above referred to was not, like his letters to the Guardian, a translation from the Greek, but was written by myself, as the embodiment of the line of Simonides' defence, gathered from numerous conver- sations held with him ; and I extracted the notice of his birth and parentage, with his sanction, from Mr. Stewart's biog^phical memoir, which it now seems was in error. I think Simonides was very much to blame in allowing me to copy a mistake of so important a nature into a letter intended for the instruction of the public on points connected with his personal history; but I am fully con- vinced that carelessness and not the intention to deceive led him to sanction the repetition of an erroneous statement which had no bearing whatever on any of the questions under discussion, and which could in no degree strengthen his defence."

I i2

484 Miscellanies. [July,

** Sir, — In our English courts of law, the weight of eridence, on either side, depends upon. the creaibilityof the person who gives it. And this again is Tcry materially affected by the antecedents and known character of the witness. Hence the severe and painfully searching investigations as to their previons habits of life, pursuits, and occupations, which learned counsel believe it their duty to make, and rightly so too.

** In the question as to the antiquity of the above-named codex, Constantine Bimonides asserts that it is not an ancient MS. copy of the Holy Scriptures, but one of our own times ; and that he is the writer of it ; and that the purpose for which it was written was that it might be offered as a present to the Emperor of Russia. Now, we can well understand and acquiesce in the appropriateness of such a gift, made by a body of religious men, to one whom ihey^ regard as the head of the Church to which they belong. And, that Church being the Greek Church, we can appreciate their good taste in having the MS. written in the Greek language, and in Greek characters. Moreover that the oldest style of character should be used ; that the writing should be on vellum or parchment, according to the ancient practice of the church. All such particulars legiti- matelv attach themselves to a perfect renaissance, which it would seem it was intended this MS. should be. But when we are told that the colour of the ink (a faded one doubtless) on the most ancient MSS. was carefullv matched ; that bone pens ,were made, and the hue of the skins imitated ; and of course every little peculiarity of letter affected, so that the minutest evidence of antiquity might not be wanting ; — I say, on all these accounts, and many others of a like kind, there does appear to be primd^aeie evidence of an intention to deceive, to cozen, to trick into a belief in the existence of something which had none.

" In a word, is it not manifest that Constantine Simonides, his pious uncle Benedict, perhaps the celebrated Hieromonachos Kallinikos, and the rest of the holy brotherhood of Mount Athos, conspired together to delude the Emperor of Russia into the belief that they had presented him with a MS. copy of the Holy Scriptures as old as the third or fourth century, when, in fact, their gift was the work of an expert one of their own number ? What consideration, in the shape of privileges, whether at the holy sepulchre, otherwise or elsewhere, may have been expected, deponent sayeth not. If not, then the MS. roust have been intended for the Emperor's use. But his convenience, edification, and comfort in this respect would hardly have been studied by employing faded tnlrx, obtUe- rations of age, obsolete characters, and 'a no longer used style of writing. All whic^ particulars were so exquisite in their semblance as to deceivcthe profound pahiso- graphist Tischendorf himself.

** Now, let us suppose that the police detected a man with a bank-note exe- cuted so exactly as to deceive even a clerk of the Bank of England himself. Or suppose they were to discover such a note, and a man should come forward and avow himself — ^boastingly avow himself — as the person who executed the highly finished work of art. Ine inference which they would draw would be of such a character as to impress them with the necessity of lodging the aocomplished individual in the nearest police-station ; which the magistrates would be quite ready enough to endorse b^ committing him, on the charge of forgery, to take his trial at the next sitting of the Central Criminal Court, or the next assizes. Such, then, appears to be the analogous position in which Constantine Simonides has placed himself. He avows himself as the person who executed a document which, upon his own elaborate shewing, and that of others competent to decide, was evidently meant to deceive.

" He must therefore select one or the other of these two horns of a most uncomfortable dilemma on which to impale himself: either that he is in the habit of uttering forged documents, well knowing them to be such ; or else bis claim to the penmanship or fabrication of the Codex Sinaiticus must be dismissed as an untruth. On either hand, Constantine Simonides cannot be regarded as a very reliable witness.

*^ Knotty A$h^ near Liverpool. " Willuim Thos. Newxhhax."

1863.]

Miscellanies. 485

Again, on February 4, the Ouardian gare us tbese : —

** Sir, — I have three antagonists this week, to all of whom I shall reply in one letter. The conversation in the library of the University of Cambridge seems to have been an unfortunate one, for certainly Mr. Wright has not represented correctly as said to him what I said to my interpreter ; and on the other hand I am afraid, from Mr. firadshaw's letter, that I have misunderstood the meaning of his expressions to me conveyed through the same channel.

** I nndei-stood him to say that he had indeed seen and examined the Codex Sinaiticus at Leipzig, hut that he should have given it a very different examina- tion if he had then had any idea that it would be claimed as a modem production : that, on the contrary, he took it as a matter of course that it was ancient, on the authority of Tischendorf. Will Mr. Bradshaw have the kindness to explain more clearly his argument about the arrangement of the leaves, which I, for my part, do not understand ?

" At this point of Mr. Bradshaw's letter I am able to put to silence your correspondent Mr. Newenham (who is evidently altogether ignorant of the history of the controversy), by making between Mr. Bradshaw's letter and his a little parallelism : —

'* ExtraAfrxtm Mr. BradsJuHo'i Letter in " Extract from Mr. Newenham? a Guardian^ Jan. 28. Tjetter in Ouardian, Jan. 2Sth,

" * Now it must be remembered that Dr. ** *■ He (Simonides) avows himself

Simonides always maintained two points — as the person who executed a docu-

first, that the Mount Athos Bible written ment which, upon his own elabo-

in 1840 for the Emperor of Russia trcu no< rate shewing and that of others

fneant to deceive any one, but was only a competent to decide, vxu evidently

beautiful specimen of writing in the old meant to deceive.^ Btylc,' etc.

*' It need not be said that Mr. Newenham does not know much of paleo- graphy, or he would not have been beguiled into so blundering a misinterpreta- tion of the paragraph in my letter to von of Jan. 21, wherein I treat of the Tarious matters proper to the palseographic art.

" Mr. Bradshaw's very proper and natural query — * How is it possible that a MS. written beautifully, and with no intention to deceive, in 1840, should in 1862 present so ancient an appearance V — I answer simply thus : — The MS. had been systematically tampered with, in order to |five it an ancient appearance, as early as 1852, when, as I have already stated, it had an older appearance than it ought to have had ; and, from what I then saw, I am not surprised that Mr. Bradshaw should have been deceived in his estimate of its age.

** Again : I seriously assert (as Mr. Bradshaw seems to think I am jesting on this grave subject) that I wrote the Codex, to portions of which Tischendorf has given the names of Friderico-Augustanus and Sinaiticus ; and I ehtUlenge him to produce these Codices in London. I will meet him there at any time he may appoint, and, in a public meeting of literary men assembled for the purpose, it shall be once and for ever decided whether he or Simonides has spoken truly.

*' Mr. W. A. Wright is again in error in asserting that I stated at Cambridge that my age was fifteen years when I wrote the C^ex. What my interpreter may have said I know not, who speaks very fluently many things which he knows about me, and also his own opinions, but I do know that I was never asked the question at all. The only mention of fifteen years in that conversa- tion was in relation to the age of the modem MS. of Esdras, one of the three MSS. which I particularly consulted in writing the text and notes upon those books.

" The errors which seem to arise on both sides from the necessity of an in- terpreter make me very sorry that there are not more gentlemen in England, among all those who profess to be acquainted with ancient Greek, who can un- derstand me when I speak in that language. In Cambridge I only had the pleasure of meeting one such — viz., the Rev. W. M. Gunson, M.A., Professor of Greek in Christ's College, to whom, with the Rev. John Hays, M.A., and

486 Miscellanies. [July,

many other ffentlemen, oBpecially of this college, I wag indebted for extremely kind, ho8pit«3)le, and coorteous treatment, daring my stay in Cambridge.

"C. BiMOlflDES.

»* PS. — I reply in a postscript to the question which Mr. W. A. Wright, in his usual headlong manner, has put to me, upon a matter in no degree concern- ing the Codex Sinaiticus, but which he thinks might prove another stone to throw at Simonides, at a time when legitimate ammunition is beginning to fail him. The MS. on papyrus, containing part of the Gospel of St. John, as well as that containing part of the First £pistle and the Second and Third Epistles, which he so conveniently assumes that I "have not exhtbited, is now in London. It was displayed at Christ's Colle^, Cambridge, for a week, dnrine the meeting of the British Association, where it was seen oy hundreds of gentlemen, among others by Mr. Babington and Mr. Bradshaw, and it was particularly examined by the two gentlemen mentioned in the last paragraph of this letter. It has been since exhibited in London, at the rooms of the Koyal Society of Literature, on Jan. 7th, 9th, and 10th, together with the other MSS. discovered in the museum of M. Mayer. " C. S."

" Sir, — The following is the note at the end of Esdras in the Codex Friderico- Augustanus to which Mr. Hodgkin refers. I give the Greek that Simonides may not accuse me of mistranslating : — Ajnt$KriGii vpos vaKeuurwroif Aior «m- ypcu^y 9^9iop9»fievw X^^^ '^^ ceyiov fMfnvpos Tlofi^iKov aw§p eurriypanpov orpos rm Tc\€i vrroiniiuuacis ris iHiox^tpos canov tnrcicciro cxowra ovrws' /ler^Ktift/pGri mat 9topBvOil wpos ra c|arXa vpiytyovs amwwos carrtfiaXtv xofi^iKos 9top9wreu Which is in English, * Collated with an extremely ancient copy corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamp hilus : with re^ra to which tnere was attached at the end a subscription in his own handwriting, running thus — ** Copied from and corrected by the Hexapla of Origen; Antoninus colkted, I Pamphilus cor- rected." ' A similar note, containing more details, is found at the end of Esther in the same codex. It adds the fact that the copy corrected by Painphilos bejran with 1 Kings fi. e., 1 Samuel according to as) and ended with Esther. The natural and obvious meaning of the note is that the writer of it, who is not the original scribe, had collated the portion just mentioned with the copy of Pam- philus, the readings from which he inserted in the margin. Simonides says — ' The entire note at the end of Esdras was taken from a comparatively recent codex on paper, preserved at Mount Athos, which was probably a copy from some earlier MS. He further states that it was inserted there as a memorandam or reference to a codex which, though not valuable on account of its age, con- tained some i^ood readings.* I leave your readers to judge which of these explanations is the true one. If Simonides inserted the note, it contains a state- ment which is untrue. If he did not insert it, his story falls to the groand.

" Mr. Hodgkin says Simonides gives an account of our interview at Cam- bridge different from mine. I have a perfect recollection of all that took place, and am ready to attest the truth of my version.

" In reply to my second statement, * Simonides simply says that the descrip- tion given by Tischendorf is incorrect, and that he knows that the MS. was not in 1844 in the dilapidated condition described by that gentleman.' This is a very easy way of getting rid of a difficulty. I prefer to believe in the truth of Tischendorfs statement, and would class that of Simonides with his new account of his age, which Mr. Hodgkin sets down as an inadvertence. Simonides now says that Tischendorf has the whole MS. in his possession, and that he intends to go to the East and make another find, when he will ask Queen Victoria or the Emperor o£ the French to patronize him. Why, then, did he leave so much of it behind in 1844 ? I should think Simonides' own friends must begin to open their eyes at last ; but none are so blind as those who will not see.

*» As a proof that the MS. is his own handwriting, he now exhibits tracings of four pages, in one at least of which is an acrostic containing his name. This one is from Genesis, which he knows perfectly well has not been recovered Those tracmgs he says he took when at Mount Sinai in 1862 ; for what reason

1863.] Miscellanies, 487

is best known to himself. Let him exhibit them at the next meetinff of the Royal Society of Literature, and there let them be discassed. They alone will shew whether his story is true. ** W. A. Weight.

" Trinity College, Cambridge, Feb, \A, 1863."

" Sir — I cannot at present trace the existence of the ^ieromonachos KalH- nikos at Alexandria, though he must be there, or have been there quite recently, since letters from him to Simonides are dated from Alexandria so late as No- vember, 1862.

*' But I hear that there is a Ilieromonachos Kallinikos at Mount Sinai, an iAd man, and respected.

^^ Other inquiries are being made, which I trust may throw light on this strange controversy.

" J. SiLVESTEB Da VIES, late Acting Chaplain at Alexandria. " 7 Upper Prospect Place, SoiahamjOon, Feb. 2th, 1863."

And again, Feb. 11, we find in the Guardian these : —

*^ Sir, — Simonides is singularly unfortunate in the people whom he has about him. I am at a loss to know who is responsible for any of his assertions. If he speaks, his interpreter misinterprets him ; if he writes, his words are mistrans- lated. There is a spectral character about every part of his evidence. Touch Kallinikos and he vanishes ; quote Simonides' words, oral or written, and in- stantly they either mean nothing, or the very opposite of what they appear to mean.' In reply to the part of his, or his friend's, letter this week which refers to me, I have to remark —

** 1. That I give the most emphatic contradiction to Simonides* account of our interview at Cambridge. I asked him two separate questions, and his inter- preter, who was a Greek and spoke English perfectly, must have been strangely wanting in his duty if he misrepresented my questions or Simonides' answers. The questions were — When does Simonides say he wrote the Codex Sinaitious ? and, How old was he at the time ? The answers were — In the year 1839, and, Fifteen. This latter fact was in accordance, be it observed, with two statements in the life of Simonides by Mr. Stewart, which Simonides allowed Mr. Hodgkin to make use of without correction, and with the account of Simonides' age when in Cambridge last October, as stated by his interpreter to Mr. Bradshaw after referring to Simonides himself. What would be thought in a court of justice of the evidence of a witness who acquits himself in this manner? And yet we are expected to take Simonides' mere assertion that he wrote the Codex Sinaitious.

*' 2. Simonides asserts — ^ The only mention of fifteen years in that conversa- tion was in relation to the age of the modem MS. of Esdras, one of three MSS. which I particularly consulted in writing the text and notes upon those books.' To this I reply that not one word was said either to Mr. Bradshaw or to myself about the age of a modern MS. of Esdras. The whole paragraph is untrue from beginning to end.

'' Here, then, are two gross misrepresentations, to use no stronger term, of plain matters of fact. Here, at least, is no palnographic mystery. How long will Simonides go on asking us to take his word ?

" W. A. WlIOHT."

** Sir, — If my testimony concerning the Codex Sinaiticus is to be at all con- sidered. Judgment must be formed on what I really said, and not on what Simo- nides (or his assistant) says that I said. In a letter to the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, dated Leipsic, June 25, 1862, and inserted by him in the Quardian of Aug. 13, I said —

" * I have now spent some days in this place ; my object being, as you know, to examine the Codex Sinaiticus, and to collate some portion as a specimen. Professor Tischendorf allowed me to look at any part of the MS. at his house (1 Linden Strasse) for three days ; I have availed myself of this permission to

488 MisceUanies. [July^

my own great satisfaction ; I trnst, too, that it has not been without fmit for the benefit of sacred letters ; for I have not only inspected the MS., bat I have com- pared several parts with the facsimile emtion which is about to be privately issued, and also I have made a collation of the Catholic Epistles.'

" I was almost surprised that Simonides (or his coadjutor) could in the Chiardian of Jan. 21 have professedly taken from that very number of the Guardian that Dr. Tregelles * says that in three days only he went through the MS. of the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex, examined it, compared it with other MSS., and copied several parts. This was blindly believed by every one,' etc. Now, as I never pretended to ' perform such a Herculean work in three days,' all the deductions of Simonides and his friends are worth nothing, for they are all based on their own false citation.

** In three of the days (not consecutively) that I was ai Leipsic, I examined the MS., collated the Catholic Epistles, and noted particular readings ; on inter- mediate days 1 examined the printed sheets, and noted readings or passages to which I thought that it would oe well to pay particular attention. Now I have myself exammed very many ancient Greek MSS. ; I have collated aU such that are known and accessible, containing the Greek New Testament, or any part of it ; and I feel as much confidence in the genuineness and antiquity of Codex Sinaiticus, as I do In that of Codex Vaticanus or Codex Alexandrinus. A man might make a facsimile of a page or two which might at first deceive ; but how can this be done, with the corrections of various hands and various ages ? Who- ever pretends that Codex Sinaiticus can be modem, virtually asserts that it was intended to deceive.

" Simonides seems to be singularly unfortunate in his assistants and trans- lators ; Mr. Charles Stewart, Mr. John Eliot Hodgkin, and Mr. T. Silke, all alike seem to succeed in misrepresenting him; it thus becomes a question tcho is responsible for any statement. The letters of Kallinicus, so far as they have been printed in Greek, have the advantage that no complaint can be made on the ground of translator's errors. As to what is put forth with tjie name of Simonides, we know not how much is said for him oy his friends ; it would be far better for them to write under their own names, and for Simonides to print all that he has to say in plain and intelligible Greek. The denial by Simonides of the date of his birth, Nov. 11, 1824, stated thus by kim at Cambridge in the presence of Mr. Wright and Mr. Bradshaw, and for him by Mr. C. Stewart and by Mr. J. E. Hodgkin; and his assertion now made that it took place Nov. 5, 1820, ought to cause his friends (and even his coadjutors) to stand in doubt of all that he afi!irms. In Mr. C. Stewart's memoir, the date of Nov. 11, 1824, is twice given, pp. 2 and 74 — (if a mistake had been made he could have corrected it in the second place) ; and as his parents' marriage is stated (p. 74) to have taken place in 1823, it is remarkable that he should now voluntarily^ bring back his pirth to 1820 : it would have been better to have adhered to * quieta non nufvere.^

** But as Simonides sent me, in January, 1861, the memoir by Mr. C. Stewart, to confute all that I had said about him in Additions to Home's introdudion^ vol. iv., |)p. 759-60 ; and as, at p. 32, Mr. Stewart says that * if any doubt should remain in the mind of the reader, the authority for every statement will be at once furnished,' I am fully justified in treating this book as being what Simo- nides and his co-operators vnshed to he believed. It is strange that the memoir not only does not mention the visit to Mount Sinai in 1852, but appears to leave no room for such a Journey, unless indeed it lay on his route from Egypt to the Canary Islands by way of Algeria.

" It must not be forgotten that, in dealing with Simonides, we have to do with one about whom there are serious questions: — (1.) As to the forged Uranius and Hermas, etc. (2.) The pretended papyri of St. Matthew, etc., of the first century (published). (3.) The pretended copy of St. John's First Epistle, of the first century, con taming 1 John v. 7 runpublished). (4.) And now the cUim that he in 1840 wrote a MS. in perfect imitation of a document of the fourth century, professing in part to be copied from an ancient codex, corrected by the hand of the martyr Pamphilus ; and containing corrections apparently of various ages, and by very various hands.

1863.] Miscellanies, 489

** I know that Simonides has read the portion of my AddiHons to Home in which I spoke of Codex Sinaiticns and Codex Friderico-Angustanus : he said this in writing to nie, for he referred to the notes on these very pages. Did not this suggest to Simonides, oat of revenge against Tischendorf, the invention of the story that the MS. was modem, and written hy him ?

" True knowledge of ^alnography is closely connected with the facts of the transmission of Holy Scripture. This is no mere literary question, but one bearing on what we Know of the inspired oracles of Qod. To forge a MS. as if ancient is to endeaTour to uphold readings in such a copy as if they had the vantage-ground of early authority ; a procedure the folly or which is only sur- passed by its sin : to pretend to nave written a MS. really ancient, and tnus to seek to make all pal»og^aphic facts matters of doubtful questioning, is a sin of a similar kind. This it is which makes it so needful to expose the pretensions of Simonides and his coadjutors. It is vain for the whole matter to oe laughed at as a mere quarrel of critics. It may be easy to suggest suspicions on both sides ; bat merely to do this is simply to make all truth seem uncertain. It is not a question of the reputation of Tischendorf, Simonides, Tregelles, Hodgkin, Wright, or Stewart, but oifaett^ of an established and momentous kind, which some choose to assail, while others turn the whole subject into sport. It may be sport to a contemporary journal (the Literary Churchman^ Dec. 16, 1862), but it is matter of life and death to those who see its bearins on God's holy Word.

*■'' It may be easy (with the writer referred to) to ma^e an amusing enumera- tion of what he calls aramatu persona, seeking apparently to take some excep- tion to most of the witnesses; but in this some knowledge of facte would have been well. Thus, Von Falkenstein, the Saxon Minister, is termed the Busaian; Simonides is described as * hitherto a friend of Tischendorf.' The third stands thus — * Newton (a former Fellow of Exeter ?), co-religionist and friend of Tre- gelles.' Now, the Mr. Newton whose name has appeared in the matter is Mr. John Newton, surgeon, of Liverpool, of whose religious opinions I know nothing, and whom I never saw; though Simonides (or his assistant) called him (Guardian, Sept. 5^ * a friend of Dr. Tregelles.' This Mr. John Newton was evidently con- fonnded by the writer with my friend Mr. Benjamin Wills Newton, who was a Fellow of £xeter College, Oxford. The expression * co-religionist of Tregelles ' is connected with the description given of me, — * Tregelles, a Plymouth brother and critic :' had this been all true^ I might still have been a good witness ; but the fact is, that though I live at Pljrmouth, I have nothing to do with those now called * Plymouth Brethren,' their opinions or practices. This mode of treating the subject would only lead away from the matter in hand. Can Simonides prove that he wrote Codex Sinaiticus ? and is there no flaw in his narration, no point where his evidence gives way?

" So far from Simonides and his assistants having any doubt, at the date of the Memoir, August, 1859, of the genuineness of the MS. discovered by Tis- chendorf, that he or they {Memoir, p. 61) cite the finding of this MS. as a proof of the manner in which parchments may be preserved. * M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monasteir in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well as the First Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the second century, or 1,750 years ago. This MS. is represented to be in excel- lent condition.' They gave a somewhat inaccurate account of the MS., and where it was found ; but then they wished to add to its antiquity instead of deny- ing it altogether. Now, however, we are told {Guardian, Jan. 14), * Having seen in the Standard of Monday, May 23, 1859, an account of the aiscovery at Mount Sinai, I wrote to Kallinikos on the subject, and received from him a letter. . . . This letter, however, not being sufficiently explicit, eepecitdly as re- garde (he identification of the newly-found codex with my oion, I wrote,' etc.

** I need, I suppose, waste no words to prove that up to August, 1859, Simo- nides and his coadjutors hnd no suspicion but that Tischendorf had really dis- covered a very ancient Codex ; he could not, therefore, have been writing to Kallinicus in the way of setting aside the discovery — of the particulars of which he then knew so little.

** The author of the memoir of Simonides promises that * if any doubt should

490 Miscellanies. [July^

remain in the mind of the reader, the authority for erery statement shall he at once famished ' (p. 32). Let, then, the author of tlie memoir, Mr. Charles Stewart, or ScarJatus Stourtzas, ffive, according to his promise, at ance^ explanar tions of all diffioulties ; in Greek, if he pleases (since he writes by preference, Tissendorf, Montphocon, etc.), or if in English, so definitely that there can be no doubt about the translation.

" And let Simonides shew tohere Professor Tischendorf manifests that he was *■ ^eatl^ bewildered ' by certain initials, and let him state wluU were the * several highly mgenious methods of accounting for them,' which Tischendorf * in vented.' Let this be explained or admitted to be a fiction. If explanation is avoided, but one conclusion can be drawn. If Simonides inserted m'krks in the MS., it may prove that he saw it at Mount Sinai and wrote on it : if none of his marks are there, it shews that what he said about having * marked in the margin the ini- tials of the different MSS.,' is utterly and entirely false,

" 6 Portland Square, Plymouth, Feb, 5, 1863." " S. P. TawjELLBS."

Three more letters appeared in the Guardian of Febmary 1 8th : —

** Sir — I venture to think that there must be some limit to the controversy with respect to Simonides and his deeds, which has been now carried to consi- derable length in your columns ; and that certain facts elicited at the meeting of the Royal Society of Literature on last Wednesday evening, February 11th, afford this limit.

" On this occasion. Sir Henry Rawlinson, K.C.B., being in the chair, a report from the council of the society was read, strongly condemnatoiy of the g^nume- ness of the whole of the papyri from Mr. Mayer's museum at Liverpool, which Simonides has unrolled and published recently, under the title of Facnmiles, etc ; and though Simonides and his friends professed indignation at this statement, no effective answer was given during the ensuing discussion to any of the charges advanced in that report.

*' At the conclusion of the report, a paper was read by Mr. W. Aldis Wright on the Codex Sinai ticus, in which, while giving a brief account of the means by which Tischendorf procured it, he gave a refutation to the pretensions of Simo- nides such as that person had evidently not expected.

" Mr. Wright laid upon the table the original of the letter of Kallinicus Hieromonachus, which had, apparently, been written at Alexandria, and which had certainly been sent thence to the Ohiardian office by the ordinary post. Mr. Wright proved, by comparison of the writing of this letter with other known specimens of the handwriting of Simonides, that the letter of Callinicus must have been wrUien by Simonides himself in England, and sent hence to some one in Alexandria, who posted it to tlie Guardian.

*' Now, Sir, I submit that, this being so, there ouffht to l)e no further discus- sion about Simonides, and that no attention should be paid to any future asser- tions of either himself or his friends. We have it now as a fact which any person of ordinary intelligence can decide for himself, that Simonides has attempted to maintain his assertion that he wrote the Codex SinaiUcus, by means of a letter which he has himself forged,

** I may add that the Rev. Mr. Nicolaides, recently minister of the Oreek Church in Liverpool, in whose house Simonides lived for some months, declared publicly, on the same evening, in the presence of Simonides, that the letter of kallinicus and the other documents Mr. Wright exhibited with them were all in one and the same hand-writinff--yiz., that of Simonides.

•* 55 Upper Berkeley Street, Feb, nth, 1863." " Wm. S. W.' Vaux.

'* Sir — In your number of January 28th this year is a letter signed by Mr. W. A. Wright. In the first paragraph he states that Simonides' interpreter, in answer to his question relative to the age of Simonides when he wrote tne Codex, said that Simonides was * fifteen years old.'

** I beg to observe that I am not the interpreter of Simonides, but am his friend, and would not trouble you with this, but as Mr. W. A. Wright took

1863.] Miscellanies. 1t91

upon himself to make this same statement as to the age at the meeting of the Royal Societv of Literatare, when I was ohb'ged to contradict him, and that rather strongly — that I never made snch an assertion, neither from myself or from Simonides — I take this opportunity of stating the reasons why I could not have made such an assertion : —

^* 1.^ Because I had only a few days before drawn the attention of Simonides to this inaccuracy in Mr. Stewart's memoir,

" 2. Because I had seen the certificate of Simonides' baptism, a copy of which I enclose you, signed first by the priest and two of the witnesses, then by the mayor, and secretary of the island of Symi, and lastly, by the Vice-Consul of Austria.

** 3. Because I knew from many of my Greek friends the age of Simonides.

" Under these circumstances, I should think that no person of candour can now have any doubt whatever on the point in question.

'' 24 TiMome Street, Feb. nth, 1863.'' " L. Dsaoachbs.

" Sir — During the meeting last Wednesday of the Boyal Society of Literature, I was called on, in ajperemptory manner, by Mr. W. A. Wright, to exhibit the four letters signed '^ Kalliuikos Hieromonacnos," which were committed to mv charge. I declined to obey Mr. Wright, and offered to give my reasons for this course, which, however, the meeting did not seem to require. With your per- mission I will briefly state the most important of them, the others being of a personal nature connected with the character of a private correspondence with me which Mr. W. A. Wrieht had commenced.

'* i considered, and still consider, the course adopted by the Royal Society of Literature, at their last meeting, to be a most unfair and un-English one. At a meeting ostensibly convened for the reception of a report of the council on the Mayer Fapyri, professedly unrolled by Simonides, which was sure to chaUenge a vigorous reply irom those who held tne arguments of that body to be weak and one-sided, it was attempted to preclude the healthy discussion of that report, by the immediate introduction or a paper by Mr. W. A. Wright on the Ckxlex Sinaiticus, the simple object of whicn appeared to be to shake the faith of the public in the personal character of Simoniaes. A very strong clique attempted to rule that this paper should be read before the discussion on the Mayer Papyri could take place, but the desire of fair play was so strong among some of the neutral party, that the meeting condescenaed to allow the report of the council to be discussed first, though the controversy was much curtailed by the eager- ness of the friends of the Codex Sinaiticus, for the paper which was to throw discredit on the pretensions of Simonides. This paper was read, and personal evidence was called in support of it, which I believe I only speak the feeling of the meeting in describing as extremely discreditable.

" I attended both the meetings of the Royal Society of Literature for the purpose of attempting to procure for the Uranius and the Papyri the close exami- nation which I believe them to deserve, and not for that of vindicating the cha^ racier of Simonides or his daim to the vmtina of the Codex Sinaiticus^ and it was not likely, therefore, on these grounds alone, that I should respond to Mr. Wright's mandate for the production of the letters in question. I had, how- ever, before the meeting, talcen the course which occurred to me as the best for the ascertaining of what seemed to me the most important fact (for reasons fur- nished by a close scrutiny of the series) — ^viz., whether all the letters were in the same handvmting ; and by the kindness of Mr. Pearson Hill had been referred to the expert employed by the Post-ofiice for investigations of this nature. I found from an interview with him that there was in his opinion no palpable appearance of fraud, and that all the letters were in the same hand.

" After the meeting, I had some conversation with Mr. W. A. Wright, the result of which was that I promised to examine still more minutely the handwrit- ing. I have done this, and! feel that the controversy has now reached a stage at which it is best for me no longer to retain the guardianship of the four letters, but to place them still more easily within the reach of tnose gentlemen who

492 Miscellanies. [July,

may wish to examine them. I send them, therefore, to the Rev. W. J. Irons, D.D., Brompton, who has kindlj consented to take charge of them— not as editor of the Literary Churchman (in which character some one addressed him in error at the meeting on Wednesday), but because he has taken so great an interest in the matter daring the illness of the editor of that journal, that he has a compre- hensive view of the merits of the case.

** I would beg those gentleman who examine these letters, to give them their earnest and minute attention, and considering the great importance of the issue, to weigh calmly and seriously the Tarions questions which may arise during their scrutiny. And I think that the judgment of some perfecUy unbiassed ana competent expert should be obtained if possible.

" met Derby, Feb, l-UA, 1863." " John Eliot Hodokik.

Since these, nothing of consequence bearing upon the discussion has come under our notice, except a correspondence between the real Kallinikos and the Rev. J. S. Davis, which we append from the Guardian of May 27.

** To the Editor of the Ouardian. — Sir, I am now in a position to place before the public direct evidence trom Mount Sinai which will, I think, conclude the case against Simonides, and convict him, in the eyes of all reasonable men, of direct forgery. The first of the following letters is a copy of one which I wrote to the venerable Kallinikos Hieromonk of Sinai, and which was kindly forwarded by the Rev. Edwin J. Davis, Consular Chaplain at Alexandria. I send you the letter entire, in order that the answer of the Hieramonk, of which I give the original and a translation, may be more cleariy understood : —

** To the Hieromonk Kallinikos at the Content of Mount Sinai,

' '* Grace, mercy, and peace, etc.

* " Reverend Sir — It is known to you that the celebrated critic Dr. Tischen- dorf has obtained from the library of the convent on Mount Sinai a Codex of the Sacred Scripture, which he assigns to a very earl)* date.

" * It may be also known to you that the skilful palseographist Constantino Leonidas Fhotios Simonides has astonished those who are interested in this mat- ter by putting forward a claim to the authorship of the Codex, wliich Dr. Tischen- dorf is now publishing to the world as a work probably of the fourth oentuiy.

'' ' It is a matter of greatest importance that the truth should be known : and the question can, doubtless, be settled on the evidence of the MS. itself. Several letters, however, have appeared in English journals {e.y., the Ouardi€tn and the Literary ChurehmanJ bearing your honoured name, in which letters is contained a defence of the claim of Simonides to be the author of this Sinaitic Codex, Pardon, then, Rev. Sir, the liberty I take in addressing you in the name of many others in Engbmd who are interested in the result of this controversy. We would beg of ^ou kindly to inform us whether you know personally this Dr. Constantino Leonidas Photios Simonides — whether you wrote the letters from Alexandria to which t have referred, and which you cannot fail to remember if you wrote them. Further, we would inquire whether Simonides is himself known to have visited Mount Sinai; and if so, whether he visited it in 1844 or in 1852. We have been led to suspect (1) that the letters bearing your signature are for- geries by C. Simonides ; and (2) that Simonides himself was never at Sinai.

" * By informing us on these points you will merit our humble thanks, and the cause of truth will be helped ; and all those will thank you who are zealous for Biblioal learning.

'* * Kindly write back to me again. Farewell in the Lord. — ^Wholly and sincerely your devoted servant,

** * J. SiLYBSTEB Davies, Priest of the English Church, now of Southampton, lately of Alexandria.

'* * Written at Southampton, England, Feb. 25, 1863.

" * My friend the priest, Edwin J. Davis, British Consular Chaplain at Alex- andria, who forwards to you this letter, will also transmit your welcome reply.' "

1868.]

Miscellanies. 493

Here comes the original Greek of the letter of KalliDikos, but the English translation of it will be enough for our purpose.

" 'To the Most Venerable Prieet^ J. Silvester Daviee, of Southampton, JEngland* " * From the Monastery of Mount Sinai, 1 (13) April, 1863.

" ' Moet pious, and by me most respected, Sir — I received the valuable letter, brought to me from you, written at Southampton on February 25 of this same year, in which you ask me, in the first place, whether the letters published in several English journals under the signature ' Kallinikos Hieromonachos," and defending Mr. Simonides, are iudeed my letters or not ; secondly, whether the said Mr. Simonides ever visited the monastery of Mount Sinai.

*' ' In answer to your first question I reply, that besides myself there is no other Kallinikos Hieromonachos m this holy monastery. But I lived away from the monastery from the year 1838 to 1855, having been sent on different monas- tic services to Damascus, Rhodes, and elsewhere ; and never anywhere have I made acquaintance with any Simonides. Since, then, there is no other Kallinikos Hieromonachos besides myself among the brethren of this monastery, and I have never known any Simonides, and consequently I did not write the aforesaidletters to shield him in his tricks, it follows that these letters have been forged by Simo- nides himself.

" • To answer your second question, I sought to know for certain from my aged and long-standing brethren, whether they remembered any one called Simo- nides having come up to Mount Sinai, and having visited our holy monastery : and they all expressly assured me in the negative, that certainly never did any Simonides appear in this monastery. One of the brethren declared to me above all, that in the year 1852, being at Alexandria, he saw Mr. Simonides, who had landed there with the view of going thence to Damietta and Upper Eg3rpt. But suddenly, without going anywhere, he went to England, having embarked in the ship Kasionf Captain Nicholas Maliaraki.

*' ' Since, then, Mr. Simonides never visited Mount Sinai, but having only just come to Alexandria, immediately went thence to England ; he lies when he positively affirms that the ancient MS. of the Holy Scripture, published by Mr. Tischendorf, is his work ; because the MS. in question (as the librarian of our holy monastery, having been so from the year 1841 to 1858, assured me) belonged to the library of the monastery, and was marked in its ancient catalogues. The book, then, which the librarian who was appointed in 1841 found in this library, how could it possibly be the work of Simonides, who never set foot on Mount Sinai, but only got as far as Alexandria in 1852, and went back directly from thence without having visited any other part of Egypt ? In every way, then, the assertion of Simonides is proved false, when he says that that ancient MS. was his work.

" ' As to myself, if the great distance of place and my own advanced years permitted, I would willingly deliver him over to the righteous dealing of the laws as having abused me, and forged under my name those letters to prop up his great charlatanisnL — ^Accept, Sir, my unfeigned respect, with which I am your sincere friend, " * Kallikikos Hiebomonachos of Sikju/

" Such, Sir, is the letter of ' a holy and virtuous man ' (Simonides' words, Chtardiany Jan. 21) — ^the 'old man, and very near to death" (IMerwry Churchman, Deo. 16, 1862), whom Simonides has injured, and in doing so, prepared his own Ml. We have now given the Hieromonachos ' a respectful hearing ;' we believe him to be (as I mentioned some weeks ago after information from Alexandria) * a perfectly upright and honourable man, well known for truth and probity, so that his simplest word ma^ be relied on " (Simonides' words, Ovardum, Dec. .10, 1862). What will Simomdes now say P The original letter of Kallinikos shall be at the service of those who desire to examine it.

'' WooUton, Southampton, May 22, 1863." " J. SlLVESTEB Dayies.

I am uncertain about the renderiiig of this word.

494 Miscellanies. . [J ulv.

To the letters foi'WBrded by Mr. Davis to the Ouardian, the Literary Churchman, of June 16th, has published a letter from Simonides in hu pecaliarl; circumstantial style. We give this with the remarks which the editor of the Literary Churchman has thought himself permitted to make, in behalf of Simonides^ as we read them.

*' The Sinaiiio Codex. — KaDinikoSi Simonides, and Mr. Davies. — ^The tone of triumph against Simonides, adopted by some of our contemporaries on the publi- cation of a supposed letter Arom kallimkos, is, to say the least, premature, and will hardly do crectit to their reputation for ' English fairness/ We confess that we were sunyrised at Mr. Dalies' ready acceptance of the statement, that there was no other ' Kallinikos/ But this was not the only suspicious particular in the too round and complete document which was to expose Simonides. For ourselves, we resolved to maintain our neutrality. Scripture criticism is too sacred to be roughly handled, as some off-handed persons are handling it. Simonides may be as bad as Tischendorf says, or Tischendorf as bad as Simonides ; but we pause for evidence, and in the meantime print the following, just received : —

*' ' To the Editor of the ' Literary Churchma/i^ — Sir, — I am astonished at the credulity or malice which professes to see the question of the Codex Sinaiticus closed, and the ' case against me' made conclusive by the letters forwarded to you by Mr. J. Silvester Davies.

" '1 am at a loss to know whether this gentleman has been grossly imposed upon or not. But two things are perfectly dear — 1st, that the negative testimony of a Kallinikos of Sinai^ whose name I have never heard, and of whose existence I am doubtful, to the effect that he did not write the letters of KaUinikoe of Athos, only proves the folly of those who wrote to the the wrong individual ; 2nd, that the letter of which you have published a copy is not such as would be written by a person holding the position which the correspondent of Mr. Davies is supposed to hold. The Kallimkos who addressed the letters to the London papers on the subject of the Codex Sinaiticus is a Thessalonian by birth ; his ancestors spring from the town of Niaousta, in Macedonia, and are related to General Kayatasus. He was born in the year 1802, and named Kyriakos, He took the name of KaUinikoe on his admission to the church ; and having taken an active part in the Greek revolution, received tiie surname of Keraunos, on account of his bravery. He then ceased (as is necessary', according to our ecclesiastical law, in cases wherein a priest has taken up arms), from the profession of pubHo sacerdotal duties, and spent a long time in a monastery of Mount Athos, where I made his acquaintance. Since this time he has been engaged in semi-political missions, and I have had continual correepondence with him. He has travelled through Europe, Asia, and part of Africa, and the whole of the Archipelago, and hoe publithed at Moscow €md at Odessa a number of my letters to him upon arelueological matters. What has my friend in common with the Kallinikos of Sinai ? whose knowledge of the events which have occured in his monastery seems to Wve been derived from a seventeen years' absence — (see his statement, that he lived away from his monastery from 1838 to 1855)— verily nothing at all. But because it suits Mr. Davies' purpose, he first discovers that there is a man of the same name as my correspondent at Mount Sinai, takes great pains to inform us that he is ' an honourable man,' and then, after a long interval, prints his information, to the effect that he is quite ignorant of the matters about whioh he is asked. He may now, perhaps, find another Kallinikos at Cairo, or at Damacus, or where not ? The name is not an unueual one. The Archbishop even of Mount Sinai is named KaUinikoe— the late Patriarch of Alexandria was named Kallinikos— «nd there are several of the same name in Mount Athos, each of whom may write him another letter assuring him that he did not write the letters to Simonides, and that tiierefore (mark the logic) they have been forged by Simonides 1' It is clear that Mr. Davies must have considered that there was but one Kallinikos in the Bast, and that it was immaterial where he resided, so that he could be brought to deny that he wrote the letters which were written in reality by my friend Kalhnikos of Mount Athos.

1863.] Jiiscellanies. 495

'**Itis not surprising that this Kallinikos should have been unable to hear of my three visits to Mount Sinai from his brethren, for two reasons — Ist, that divers of the monks are continuallj replaced by others, and are in turn sent to the poeseasions of the monastery in Russia, Wallaohia, Bulgaria, etc. Only some twenty or thirty monks are retained at Mount Sinai ; and so great are the changes, that on my second visit I only saw two of the same faces which I had seen during my first stay. 2nd, I was at Mount Athos for politinal reasons, and was habited as a monk, and was known as Sophronius and not as Simonldes. These matters would be well understood by those who know the peculiar relations of the Greeks, Boman Catholics, and Turks in those regions, but may be incomprehensible to some of your readers.

" ' I emphatically deny that the Codex Sinaiticus was inscribed in the Ancient Catalogue, for the good reason that no ancient catalogue exuU ; there was none there whatever, till I made a catalogue, during my firrt visit, for the Patriarch of Constantinople, Constantius, who before was Archbishop of Mount Sinai.

" ' I have now said perhaps enough about the non-identity of Mr. Davies' Kal- linlkos and my own, though 1 shall be happy to give any farther information which may be required as to my friend, or to satisfy any gentleman who has visited Mount Sinai of the correctness of m^ assertions as to my three visits to the monastery there.

'* ' And now I must enlighten the public a little about the style of the letters of the new Kallinikos. I say, that they are not the work of a genuine Steromo- nachos living in his monattery, for these reasons : — 1st, That they are not marked with the sign of the crota at the beginning and end, which is the ancient and universal custom ; 2nd, It is not lawfUl for any of the clergy of the Greek Church to give titles of veneration to the ministers of any congregation not recognized by our Church, and whoever does so is liable to severe punishment. Your readers may inform themselves upon this point by consulting Mr. Curzon's Moncuieries of the Levant. I have not the book at hand to refer to, but I remember that an instance is given therein of the ignorance of high titles in the English Church professed by Greek ecclesiastics ; 3rd, It is not allowed to any monk, who is in residence at his monastery ^ to receive any letter from, or send any letter to any correspondent, either father or mother, unless the hegownenos of the monastery first read such letters or reply. If an attempt is discovered to evade this regula- tion, the letters are burnt. All letters which leave the monastery bear, or ought to bear, the autograph note of approval of the heyonmenos. For the monks are supposed to have renounced the world and its relationships, and to need no inter- course with the outer life, and many a time epistles from father or mother, secretly given, have been discovered and forcibly taken away. The whole monas- tery is like a garrison, and this increases the difficulty of sending letters surrep- titiously ; 4th, The style of the letter is quite complimentary, and not in accord- ance with eoclesiasticiU gravity. The writer certainly answers with great good nature, exactly in the tone which he could not fail to see, from the beseeching tenor of Mr. J^avies' letter, would be agreeable to his correspondent ; but he goes too far in politeness when he makes use of the expression quite foreign to the tongue of a Greek ecclesiastic : — ' Adxfivrt, k^ic, r^y clXiJcpiKi} vwo\€t(fi)f^lp yuovy

« < That these are not genuine Greek expressions, but English or French com^ pUments trcmsUUed into omr tongue^ one need not be a Greek to perceive ; and, indeed, the whole letter bears evident marks of translation from a foreign Ian- guage, 5th. I beg your readers to observe what has doubtless escaped Mr. Ihivies' notice, vis., the date of his correspondent's letter — the first of April (18th, N.8.). The first of April and its absurdities are perpetuated in Greece with far more freedom than in Europe. It is the great day for amusing decep- tions and dehisions ; the day on which hoaxes of all sorts are perpetrated, and no man, either clerical or la^, who wished to be believed, would dream of dating his letter * the first of April.' If he unwittingly did so, he would still not get his countrymen to believe he was in earnest. I cannot tell who is the deceiver in the present instance ; but there can be no doubt that some one is enjoying a hearty laugh at the expense of the readers of the Chtardian.

496 MiscettanieM^ [J^lj^

<( <

All this time, too, the real test of the genuinenef» of the C!odex Sinaiticiu is neglected. The publio were assured that in Ma^ Tischendorf was to be in London, armed with a portion at least of his great Codex. I have waited in Eng- land hoping to have the opportunity of meeting him, face to face, to prove him in error ; but May has come and ^ne, and the discoverer has not appeared.

" ' Let the fsivourers of the antiquity of the MS. persuade him to come ai once, and brave the ordeal, or else for ever hold his peace.

*' ' I am. Sir, yours respectftilly, " * June eth, 1863.* " " * C. SiMOKiDEs.

We shall not add any comment upon this letter at present. It leaves us where we were. Simonides has written too much already^ and we wish he would be content to wait. He has been convicted of gross indiscretions, and his Eobinson Crusoe style has brought him into endless troubles. He may rest assured that neither he nor Dr. Tischendorf will decide when Codex Sinaiticus was written.

The following is a letter on Mr. Mayer's papyri : —

" To the Editor of the ^ Parthenon.^ — Sir, will vou allow me space for a few remarks upon the subject of the genuineness of Mr. Mayer's papyri, in reply to your article in the Atrthenon of January 17 ?

" The assumption that Mr. Mayer (whilst taking no active part in the ex- hibition of the papyri, and not entering into controversy upon their merits) is desirous of hearing the opinions of all comers as to the valiie of his manuscripts, is perfectly correct ; though he does not need public opinion to convince his own mind of their aenuinenesa. But, in justice to that gentleman, it should also be remembered that he has done more than merely exhibit his treasures ; he long ago published an account of the unrolling of the papyri, which should have pre- vented your making the disparaging statement that * the exact circumstances under which Simonides unrolled the papyri are extremely difficult to come at : it is stated that the unrolling took place at Mr. Maver's house.' If you will refer to the Athenceum of December 28, 1861, you will find a letter from Mr. Mayer, in which a complete though succinct account is given of the unrolling of the papyri in his museum. If more details are required than are contained in this letter, and if the word of Simonides is not to be taken, application should be made to Mr. Mayer for a more explicit narrative ; and when that gentleman declines to furnish all the information in his power, and not till then, will it be allowable to make such a statement as that above referred to.

" I venture to suggest, in the second place, that if the obiect be to give to the public an opportunity of forming a correct judgment, tne facts, whether more or less recent, should be given with as much precision as possible ; and that if it were necessary to make the statement, that Simonides produced in England, in 1853, certain manuscripts which were at once pronounced to be forgeries, it should have been made in so circumstantial a manner that the ordinary reader might have the opportunity of discovering the names of the experts who gave the decision, and tube grounds upon which their judsrment was arrived at ; for if the public, who will have forgotten the details of the present discussion in 1873, are then merely told that in 1863 Simonides exhibited in London a manuscript of Hermippus, which "wm pronounced to be a foreery, they will be as unreasonably prejudiced against him as they are likelv to be by the bold statement just referred to. I suppose the manuscripto of which you speak were those submitted to the Royal Society of Literature, and for the examination of which a special committee was appointed, whose report, if brought before the public at the present juncture, would be of service, — ^not, it is true, in the determination of the genuineness or spuriousness of the manuscripts lately exhibited, but in their appreciation of tne character of the discoverer. Would the Society object to the publication of this report ?

" Your observations are confined to the papf ri on which are inscribed the letters of Hermippus, and especially to the long letter which contains a hieratic

1868,]

. Miscellanies. 497

mgoription in the midst of a Greek text Tbe latter wag so &r from fbrming what 70a considered a reasonable aooompaniment to the five genuine hieratic Imes, that these appeared to yon like an island of truth floating in the midst of a red sea of falsehood. You accordingl v made a close examination of the physical aspect of the manuscripts. Whilst it will be seen that I ventnie to differ entirely from the conclusion to which you were led by this examination, I would earnestly invite the more careful inspection of the physical peculiarities of all the papyri of Mr. Mayer, as I beliere that, after diligent microscopic scrutiny, each fragment may be pronounced genuine or spurious upon external evidence. The nature of the discovery next made was twofold: — 1. A' general muddy pink tmt. 2. Little flecks of blotting paper. Now a pink tint caused upon the surface of papyrus by the application of blotting-paper, and not resolvaole by a low magnifying power into distinct specks, must be in reality a Hain, caused by the discharge of the red colouring matter, and its retention on the surface.

'* I assert that not only does no pinkish stain of any kind exist upon the surface of this papyrus, but also (after repeated experiment) that it is physically impossible to communicate an^r such stain to papyrus by the apphcation of blotting-paper in any way which ingenuity can suggest; and I respectfully challenge you to exhibit in public, at the next meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, your nuxhu operandi, or to make a disclaimer of this part of your statement. I need hardly say that if the tint toere resolvable, an almost infinite number of infinitely small specks would be needed for its production.

" The second discovery was that of the little flecks of actual blottine-paper which exist upon the surface, not only of this, but of other papyri in the col< lection. And from this point I wonder that you did not carry on your reasoning one step. Granted that the suriace of the papyrus had been freed from its hieratic contents in the way suggested, in what relation to the Greek characters would the blotting-paper have been found ? Under them, of course ; but, as was pointed out at the exnibition of the papyri, the only specks of blottinff-paper which exist are over the letters, and one, largpe enough to be the father of all the rest, is unfortunately on the hieratic inscription. One cannot help feeling that those who are really qualified to be the teachers of the people should take a great deal more pains in their investigations before pronouncing a judgment. In the present instance I am sure that yon were led away by finding what appeared to you a gross inconsistency, and that this feeling unconsciously tinged your subsequent examination. U was due to your readers to have alluded to the statement made by myself at the meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, that Simonides used red blotting-paper in the process of opening the fragment of St John's Gospel which he unrolled at my house, and that this amply accounted for the presence of any number of little specks of that material, which would adhere wherever there was on the surface a spot of the paste used in fixing the papyrus to the calico.

*' In conclusion, I must be allowed to remark, that I believe no person, how* ever skilful in the detection of fraud, would have come, after an unbiassed examination, however minute, to the same conclusion as yourself.

" I speak with some little confidence, as I~have been en^ged in the rather arduous task of spelling out letter by letter with a magnifymg-glass tbe whole of the contents of this papyrus, and I can unhesitatingly say that not the slightest symptom exists of any difference of texture or surface between the portion covered by the hieratic, and that covered by the Greek text ; but that, on the contrary, the whole writing is inoontestably written with the same ink : and the same lapse of time, be it longer or shorter, has left its unmistakeable traces upon hieratic and Greek letters alike. I shall perhaps be allowed to make some remarks on tbe text of this manuscript at the next meeting of the Kojul Society of Literature, when, with the permission of the council, it will be again exhibited. ** WeH Derby ^ Januoary 27, 1868." ** John Eliot Hodokih.

[** I have but very few words to say upon the above. Mr. Mayer's letter in the Athenasum of December 28, 1861, does not tell ns what opportunities

NEW 8BRIE8. — VOL. III., NO. VI. K K

498 Miscellanies. [July>

Bfmonides hfid of maniptilatinff the papyri wifchont witnesses. Mr. Mayer is confessedly unable to identify the papyn now produced with those which he saw unrolled. With regard to the pink tint, whether Mr. Hodgkin can see it or not^ I can hut repeat that I saw something which appeared such to me, and that it led to the discovery of small flecks of blotting-paper (of which the eidstence is admitted), which are decidedly pink. As to the exact position of these flecks I jrill not venture to speak, not having the papyrus at hand, except in regard to the large piece allndcKl to by Mr. Holgkin as being on the hieratic inscription. I recollect such a flecl^, which is, if I am not deceived, towards the edge of the hieratic text, and in that part which has obviously been partially erased, and retouched by an ignorant hand.

*^ Blotting-paper may have been used, for aught I know, for other purpoeeA besides that of erasure. That Mr. Hodgkin saw it employed in some way or other, in the process of unrolling which he witnessed, proves nothing.

^' It has puzzled some persons to explain whence a sufficient quantity of blank papyrus could have been obtained for the whole of the Greek texts pro- duced by Simonides. When the fragments are torn, ragged, and dirty, the idea of the erasure of a previous text naturally presents itself. There are some large specimens, however, in very good condition. I take this opportunity to sugeest that these may be written on the backs of papyrus rolls, which, more often than not, are free from writing, and would afford ample space. The other sides being pasted down, it may be difficult or impossible to find out now what writing they may have borne. — C. W. Goodwih."]

The Armenian-BomanUt Oonveni at Venice, — We took a gondola to the Armenian convent on the Isle of St. Lazzaro, about a mile to the south of the city. This is the most delightful mode of passing about that can be conceived. Tou sit or recline quite at your ease, protected by a canopy from sun or rain, or, if there be no chance of either, exposed to the pleasant breeze. The gondolas are flat-bottomed, and not allowed to be more than seven inches in the water, and by a law of the late republic, made to put a stop to the extravagance of which families were guilty in their decorations, as well as to the quarrels which their rivalry in this particular sometimes occasioned, the canopies must be black, which gives the little vessels almost the appearance of water hearses.

The Armenians, as a nation, became separated from the Chnrcli Catholic in consequence of their refusal to receive the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451, against the heresy of £utyches, who taught that there was but one nature in our Saviour, the human being lost in the divine. In a conference, however, 'held with the orthodox Greeks in 1170, the Armenians, while they admitted that they held one incarnate nature in Christ, declared it to be not by confusion, like Eutyches, nor by diminution, like ApoUinaris, who taught that the Divine Nature supplied in Him the place of a human soul; but according to the orthodox sense of St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his book against Nestorius. Some ages after, however, when the great schism between the East and West had long taken place, they entered into several negotiations with the Boman See, with a view to being received into its communion ; but these appear to have been chiefly occasioned by their political necessities, in order to obtain from the Pope such temporal succour as he could afford amid the desolation by which the East was then overrun. In 1318 he sent them an archbishop, who has had sacoessors, always of the Dominican order, to the present day, to whode communion some have attached themselves ;

1863.1 Miscellanies. 499

but the great body of the people seem to have adhered to their origiDal church and native pastors. However, even amongst those who are in connexion with Borne, the Armenian rites and offices are still in use. This convent was founded by one of these Romano- Armenians, M^khitar, born nt Sebaste in 1676, who received minor orders at the convent of the Holy Cross in that city at the age of nine, took the religious habit and was ordained deacon when only fifteen, and priest when twenty. He became a man of great learning and holiness, and withal great Roman zeal, and being anxious to promote both the intellectual ancT spiritual advancement of his nation, in 1700 attempted, with a few disciples, to form for their benefit a literary institution under monastic rule, at Pera, a suburb of Constantinople. They soon found, however, that this was not a place of sufficient retirement and quietness for their purpose, and so removed in 1703 to Modon in the Morea, where, by the liberal assistance of the Venetian authorities, they built a convent and established their society of MekhitarisH, according to the rule of St. Benedict, for which they obtained the Pope's sanction. Here things went on prosperously with them for about twelve years, when in consequence of the invasion of the Morea by the Turks, they again removed to Venice. Here Mdkhitar obtained from the Senate, in 1717, a grant of the Isle of St. Lazzaro, whereon were some old and deserted buildings, originally erected as a Lazzaretto, for the relief of persons who returned from the East afflicted with leprosy, and afterwards, on the cessation of that malady, used as an asylum for beggars ; but being found unfit for this purpose on account of its distance from the city, it was abandoned. Here, then, M^khitar and his associates, con<* sidered, however, by the Venetian republic as subjects of the Porte, established themselves, the old buildings at first being simply rendered habitable; but at length, in 1740, the whole convent, with the exception of the church, which underwent a through restoration, was rebuilt under the sole architectural direction of Mekhitar. He died nine years after, at the age of seventy-four. In his office of abbot he has had four successors, the last two of whom have been invested with the dignity of archbishop in partibus.

It was the great object of the founder, and he wished it to be that of his community, to disseminate the principles of the Roman Communion amongst his countrymen. . Por this purpose he caused works to be trans- lated into Armenian, and printed, especially vindicating the points on which the Church of Rome differs from that of Armenia, such as the existence of the two natures in our Lord, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, the impos- sibility of salvation out of the Roman obedience, and the practice of communion in one kind. Some members of the order are trained as missionaries to propagate these principles amongst their countrymen in Armenia, Transylvania, the Crimea, and at Constantinople.

The society of course cultivate the study of theology, but they by no means confine themselves to it. They have done much towards rendering the knowledge of their own language accessible to Europeans, by the pre- pjiration and publication of various grammars and dictionaries. They have composed and translated various works of science and literature for

500 Miscellanies. U^^7*

the benefit of their own countrymen, in the list of which I find from the Bnglish, Goldsmith's Abridgment of Roman History^ Milton's Paradise Losl, Young's Night TkoughtSy and a selection from Lord Byron's Poems. The present archiepiscopal abbot, Monsignor Georges Hurrouz, has translated Yirgil's JEneid and £clogiiei, and also composed a poem entitled The Oardens^ in four cantos. His predecessor, Monsignor Sukias de Somal, published a yalaable work in Italian, called A Pieimre of Armenian JUierature, There are five printing presses in the oonTent» from which these works are published! The compositors employed are Italians, who are simply taught to read the Armenian characters, but the proof-sheets are all corrected by the fathers.

Besides being thus engaged in study, writing, translating, and publish- ing, they also conduct the education of a number of Armenian boys, who are supported at the expense of the convent, provided with a uniform of black cloth, and should they in the course of their studies find themselves unwilling to embrace the monastic life, they are sent back t(f their own country. They are taught reading, writing, Armenian, ancient and modem, Italian, and the elements of history, especially that of their own nation. This course usually occupies them till they are seventeen years of age.

They then put on the habit of the order (simply a black cassock), and pass to the second course, which lasts two years, and includes rhetoric, Latin, French, and the exact sciences. When this is completed they are admitted, after various trials and examinations, to make their religious profession, after which they continue, commonly for six years, their former studies, with the addition of Greek and some Oriental languages, and then, for four years more, pass through various courses of philosophy and theology. At this period they are ordained priests, and take the title of Father. Each one, however, continues his studies, and also receives from the abbot some office connected with the convent ; for, with the exception of menial duties, which are left to the servants and lay-brothers, all others are discharged by the fathers. After some years, on passing the requisite examination, they may receive the degree of vartabed, or doctor, which is conferred by the abbot with great ceremony. Every father is usuaUy in* vested with it before he is sent out on mission*

They assemble in church for their offices three times a day, viz., at five, twelve and three. Mass is also said by one or olher of the fathers, throughout the morning. The boys, however, are not expected to be present at the early service. They have a slight breakfast, dine in the refectory at half-past twelve, and sup at eight.

The convent is a sweet place, well provided with library, refectory, class- rooms, private apartments, etc., as well as with grounds and garden, and enjoying delightful views. Every one has a small room to himself, and there are in the same inclosure separate quarters for the boys, the novices, the young laihers, the men of mature years, and the old men. The abbot occupies three modest apartments opening into each other. There are about twenty priests in the convent and ten clerks. Their physiognomy is decidedly rational, somewhat sallow and thin, but by no means unpleasing. We were kindly conducted over the place by a gentlemanly young monk, who conversed with us in French.

1868.] Miscellanies. 501

The cbapel is smnll, neat, and bandsomely furnislied, but by its various altars betrays its conue^Lion with the Latin communion. The service was the most magnificent I ever witnessed. The archbishop, a thin, spare man, apparently about fifty-five, who was the celebrant, was attended by six or seven deacons, and about a dozen other ecclesiastics and choir boys, who were attired, some in yellow, and others in deep pink, loose albs, with small embroidered crosses on the backs, borders and false hoods, to which the deacons added stoles resting on the left shoulder and fastened below the right arm. The archbishop, on his entrance, wore what I took to be his usual dress — a violet cloak and skull cap — but having retired to the sacristy, came forth in his mitre and costly archiepiscopal cope, which, however, he laid aside before the consecration, and took the habit of a simple priest — a plainer, but still rich, oope» and neither mitre nor cap. Whilst he was making this change, the great curtain was drawn which divided the sanctuary containing himself and the deacons from the rest of the church, as it had been previously whilst they were preparing the bread and wine, and removing them from the credence to the altar : and as it was afterwards, towards the end of the mass, when he again put on his epis- copal vestments. Whilst he was communicating himself, the little curtain was drawn which merely enclosed the altar. The whole service was sung, chanted or intoned, sometimes by the celebrant, sometimeis by the deacon, and sometimes by the choir ; and the flabeUa, or pieces of metal hung with little bells and fastened to the points of spears, were frequently vibrated, to signify the sound occasioned by the waving of angels' wings. Various postures were adopted by those concerned in the service — at one time they stood, at another they knelt, and again at another they almost prostrated themselves — but everything was done with the greatest order, decorum, and reverence, and I do not remember to have been ever so im- pressed with a service before. At its conclusion we were invited by the monk who had shewn us the convent, to partake of the blessed bread, and did so, happy to testify our willingness to be in communion with every portion of the church; though were it not for the Monophysite opinion prevalent among the Armenians, one could feel but little sympathy with a society whose main object it is to withdraw them from the communion of their owh bishops ; and even as it is, those amongst them who become convinced of the error of that opinion, should rather acknowledge the jurisdiction of the orthodox Eastern Patriarch, whose spiritual subjects they properly are, than unite themselves with pastors intruded amongst them by the Roman pontifif, in a country where he has no rightful authority. When the mass was over, we saw the archbishop, in his ordinary dress, administer confirmation in the sacristy for the Patriarch of Venice, who was ill. He used the Latin words at the imposition of hands and the anointing, but the rest of the office was in Armenian. — Oolonial Church Chronicle,

Chaldaa and Assyria, — The reading public is blessed with a voracious appetite for new books, but it is troubled with a weak digestion. Hence it is necessary to issue large books a volume at a time, as otherwise they would neither be bought, read, nor digested. The volume before us^

500 Miscellanies. [Jfuly,

which is sent into the world on the above-named principle, has been on the verge of coming out for two or three years, but its advent has been delayed, partly, no doubt, by tutorial and professorial engagements, partly also by the fact that every six mouths or so something new is discovered which often involves the re-writing of several pages, or at least the trim- ming up of some paragraphs. Professor Bawlinson's growth as an author has been fostered by the benign influence of his elder brother's success as a discoverer ; in fact, .we cannot be far wrong in saying that were it not for the existence of Sir Henry Eawlinson, the Professor would probably have been guiltless of writing a book.

The Professor is very orthodox, rather long-winded and ponderous, but he has produced a book which will be read, and ought to be read, because in spite of all drawbacks as regards style and matter, it contains all that is known at present about some of the most interesting countries of the ancient world.

Oiu readers may be aware that grave doubts have been entertained by some of the learned as to the possibility of making use of the inscrip- tions and carvings which have been laid bare in Assyria ; and that literary Ajax, Sir G. C. Lewis, has peremptorily asserted that the attempts at interpreting the cuneiform inscriptions are all worthless, and that the ancient kingdom of Babylon, so far from having any history, never had even an existence except in the imagination of one or two misguided writers. The brothers Rawlinson, and others, hold, on the contrary, that the earliest of the Eastern monarchies was Babylonian, having a people, language, architecture, and position, quite distinct from what is usually called the Assyrian Empire. As we do not profess to be students of the cuneiform writings ourselves, we are compelled to take upon trust much of what we are told ; this, however, we are willing to do, but we must be allowed to judge for ourselves whether the inferences deduced by the author are correct or not. In this case we hold it to be most clearly proved that there was a Babylonian before the Assyrian kingdom, and that Sir George Lewis's imputations against this statement are unfounded. Before entering into -the particulars of these kingdoms we must state a great deficiency which we have felt whilst reading* the volume before us, and which we trust the Professor will, supply in the remainder of his work, namely, a verbatim translation, so far as it may be given, of some of the principal historical inscriptions from which he draws his materials. We have not all got at hand the Journal qf the Anatic Society, or any records which may have been published by Sir H. Bawlinson, but the general reader would often gladly turn to an appendix to compare the brick and stone and cylinder inscriptions with the historical sketch given in the text.

The earliest kingdom occupying part of the tract of land which lies between the Tigris and Euphrates, lay towards the South, and was called Babylonian, from its principal town, Babel, or Chaldaean, from the fact that the inhabitants of another great city, Ur, were Khaldi or moon- worshippers. The soil is rich and specially adapted for wheat and dates, but it is now, of course, almost uncultivated, and the only real traces of the former greatness of Babylon are to be found in the large mysterious- looking mounds which meet the eye of the traveller . as he wanders over

1863.] Miscellanies. 503

the plain. Each mound has a naise^ hanfle'd down from ancient times and preserved by the country-people, md some of these are to be identi- fied with the Babylonian names found in the Bible. Thus we have Mug- heir (Ur), Larsa (EUasar?), Warka (Erech), Niffer (Calneh ?), Borsippa or Birs Nimrud, which was for some time supposed to be Babylon, and the true Babel, fifteen miles east of Borsippa. Owing to the absence of stone in the country, bricks made of baked clay were the sole materals for building, and it is to the writing traceable on these bricks that weowe all we know of the language and history of the old inhabitants. If we turn to Gen. X. 10, we find that the original kingdom was Hamitic, but philo- logists are agreed in stating that the Assyrian language is Semitic. Here, then, is the first debt which orthodoxy owes to the Babylonian excavators, for they have discovered traces of a kingdom more ancient than the Assyrian, whose language, so far as it can be made out, has the Hamitic element most strongly prevailing in it. The grammar is but little known ; the conjugations are said to be intricate and difficult, and there are traces of all the four great dialects of the world in the language, namely, the Hamitic, Semitic, Arian, and Turanian. Professor Bawlinson argues hence that there may have been a mixed race at first. May we not rather conclude that we find in the old Babylonian, traces of an ori" ginal language^ as it was spoken previous to the distribution of man into four great families P We can gather very little information from the mounds with respect to the architecture of this ancient people. The most curious and perfect remains are the graves or cofiins, which are of three kinds ; first, there are brick vaults, which are gradually closed in at the top by the bricks being made to meet one another nearer and nearer, till a kind of rude arch is formed ; secondly, there are large cavernous pieces of baked clay, like dish covers, which were put over the bodies ; and, thirdly, two deep round jars were turned face to face, with the, body enclosed within them, and hermetically sealed.

The Chaldsean religion was chiefly astral. The fountain of godhead was called Ba ; then followed a series of gods, most of whom were blessed with wives. Amongst these we find Bil-nipru, the god of the chase, sup- posed to be Nimrod ; Bel-Merodach, the planet Jupiter ; Nergal, who is the planet Mars (2 Kings xvii. 30); Ishtar, or Ashtaroth, the planet Venus ; and Nebo, the planet Mercury, who was held in special regard. Berosus gives an account of the Chaldsean cosmogony, the building of Babel, and the Deluge, which agrees in main points with .the history, as recorded in Grenesis.

The merest fragments of Chaldsean histdty have been recovered for us by the excavators ; in fact, hardly anything more than a few barren names. This is, we confess, a disappointment, but perhaps future labours may bring more to light. Berosus makes out a list of seven dynasties, begin- ning with a dynasty of gods, and another of demigods ; then foUows a Median dynasty, of which we know nothing ; and thus we may make a real start with Nimrod, who may be placed, according to M. Qutschmid's ingenious calculation, at about 2280 B.C. One of his successors was Urukh or Orchamus, who built several rude temples. The next king we read of is Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 1), an Elamite, who appears to have

504 Miscellanies, [July*

been a great conqueror. His name signifies "senrant of Lagamer," an Elamite god. In the author's Bmmpion Lectures, he was identified with the Kudur Mabuk, whose name has been discovered in one of the mounds ; but it is now known that this last king must be a descendant of the former, whose name is not yet found ; and excavators have had a lesson, which they require to keep constantly in mind, not to jump to too hasty conclusions, which do a great deal more harm than good. There are many such hasty conclusioBs in this book, in which manners and customs are derived from single specimens, and names are identified on most slender grounds. The Professor in naturally anxious to make the best of his materials, and he certainly has a gift for doing so. But this is rather a fatal gift, for it tends more to awake the suspicions of sceptics than to allay them, and great care should be taken by the orthodox not to put a strained interpretation on the materials which God's providence has thrown in their hands.

The Chaldsean or Babylonian government was succeeded or over- thrown by an Assyrian empire, which was located in the northern part of Mesopotamia, and which was a larger and more important power, taking the lead in Eastern civilization. The area of Assyria appears to have been nearly as large as Great Britain ; the land was fertile ; the people fierce and proud, of a strongly-marked Semitic origin, and resembling the' Jewish people in physiognomy, and in many of their ways. It was once supposed that there was an Arian element in the nation, but the only argu- ment in favour of this view is the existence of some Arian names in that roost unreliable of authors, Ctesias.

The principal mounds or ruins are Calah (Gen. x. II), Kileh Sher- ghat, Khorsabad, and Nineveh, which is just opposite Mosul, on the left bank of the Tigris, and consists of two mounds, called Koyun- jik, and Keby Yunas (the tomb of Jonah). The circumference of the whole city, as far as can be gathered from recent examinations, was about eight miles, and the population may have been about 175,000. There remain^portions of ancient temples and palaces, of large dimensions, orna- mented with paintings and carvings, divided into a g^eat number of chambers, with curved and pointed arches. It is a question whether they had roofs or not. Probably the temples were hypsethral, but capable of having an awning stretched over them. The building material was the same as in Babylon, namly, baked brick, with the addition of stone fac- ings. .Little light has been thrown at present on the domestic and social life of the Assyrians, but perhaps the course of discovery may bring out furthec information. — Ckristian Advocate and Betnew.

END OF VOLUME III, (nBW SEBIBS).

SRRATA.

Page 482, Udc 16 from bottom, for Aug. 31, 1863, read Aug. 31, 1861. Page 483, Une 17 from bottom, fbr November, 1860, read November, 1820.

f \

' t ,